User talk:TAnthony/Archive 2

Active discussions
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Chris Stack Pic

Hey TAnthony

Look I tried to get Chris Stack's article to have a pic but it said image twice and won't show the pic, same thing happend to Farah Fath. I dunno what's wrong. Can ya fix it, I'll try to get Farah Fath's in as well.

PJ Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[]

Hey there; the actor infobox requires that you ass the image name without the word "image:" (it's inserted for you when it displays). However, so you know, fair use images (screenshots) are considered replaceable when it comes to showing what an actor looks like, so they are not supposed to be used in performer articles. The idea is that you can either go to their characters to see them in those roles, or someone has to upload a free image (taken personally, licensed or public domain). — TAnthonyTalk 18:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[]

You really need to look at this

[1] What the hell is up with the page moves? Is there/was there a One Life to Live children page? Something's not right. IrishLass (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the heads-up, don't know what they were trying to accomplish there, but as you can probably tell I got into it! LOL. — TAnthonyTalk 21:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[]
I saw. She's a "different" type of editor, to say the least. It's advisable to keep an eye on her. She also created a page for a future character on GH. Needless to say, that's already been redirected. IrishLass (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[]
Yeah, I recall some of your previous run-ins, thanks again for letting me know. — TAnthonyTalk 21:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[]

Soap character article risks deletion

Hi - thanks again for the work you did on some of my articles a while back. You did mention that some of them may technically be "in violation" and risk deletion and that if this was the case I should contact you. Well one of my articles (David Peris Noguera) has been nominated for deletion and I wondered if you and the guys at the Soaps Wikiproject could help meout with it?Any helpwould be much appreciated - thanks! theolimeister (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[]

Leto Atreides II caption change

Hi. I noticed that change but didn't revert it. Didn't make much sense to me, either. --SandChigger (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[]

Soap relationships

From User talk:King Gemini

Hey, thanks for your edits. I wanted to point out that WP:SOAPS has added a section for character relationships to the {{Infobox soap character}}. This is part of WP:SOAPS' ongoing task of removing unnecessary and excessive lists from soap articles. I haven't moved the lists into the infobox for all One Life to Live characters yet, but any you see without lists are probably done. For example, I've reverted your recent additon to Joey Buchanan. Thanks. — TAnthonyTalk 05:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[]


Why you change my work? I liked it how I left it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Gemini (talkcontribs) 20:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[]

Are you talking about Joey Buchanan? As I explained on your talk page, the relationship info you added is already included in the article, in the "Relationships" section of the infobox. Click on "Show" and it will expand the box and reveal the lists. — TAnthonyTalk 20:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[]

Hey random question

I'm searching for info for the new Dune (2010 film) adapation by Peter Berg, and I'm desperate for sources. There is this article by, and the Dune 2010 IMDB page is for all intensive purposes worthless. G hits are crap.I want to stub the article (which is incorrectly listed as 2009, and currently redirects to the main Dune page), but I'm afraid that it will be Speedily Deleted. Any suggestions? Thanks as always. Zidel333 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Days of our Lives ep count

The number all of you put in was incorrect. As of Tuesday according to the reference, the number was 10735. That's the problem with updating it on an assumption, which FightTheDarkness does, and just reverting what's been reverted. I checked the count and corrected the number. The issue at hand, the site that is referenced, which has an accurate count, doesn't always update day to day but they do catch up by the weekend. I don't think anyone was saying it was a rule, they were saying don't WP:CRYSTAL and make sure you have the right number based on the source. Sorry if that came off bitchy, didn't mean to, just tired this morning. IrishLass (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Yeah, I wasn't thinking about the number itself; in response to KellyAna's edit summary, I just wanted to make the point that it doesn't matter when it's updated, and figured my "comment" would be more readily seen in an edit summary. I obviously didn't realize (or check!) that the info itself was bad, so my apologies to you and the other Days peeps! As you realize, I don't usually make any edits there, don't even remember why I had it on my watchlist. And I hear ya, I get so frustrated with the constant minor, stupid and inaccurate edits on various soap articles, I have to keep my evil side in check, LOL  ;) — TAnthonyTalk 17:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[]
I just find it funny that no one bothered to check the actual ep count which made me sort of mad at both KellyAna and FightTheDarkness for not checking and assuming the number was correct in the first place and just adding two on. I do stuff with the pictures from the eps and they are numbered but I can't exactly use those as reference. I can use them to verify the reference as a double check, but I can't use them as a reference in the article. It is the little things irking me lately like why do people feel the need to remove hidden tags instructing people where info can come from? Do they really think this covers their tracks when they make changes? Can you tell I'm frustrated? I just want respectable articles that don't get nominated for AfD because people find gross inaccuracies. Is that too much to ask of those people? LOL!! Have a good one! IrishLass (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[]
PS regarding the revert. KellyAna may have used the wrong wording but that edit is by a sock that is in the process of being banned. I knew the name sounded familiar. FightTheDarkness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) is a sock of a sock that has been banned a few times. If I see their edits I'm going to just automatically revert them. He likes to make up categories and run around adding them to articles. In general the categories end up deleted. IrishLass (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Hunters external links section?

Hi. Did you mean to delete that entire section or just one (the middle?) of the links? Which one were you referring to as "not a review...just a preview"? The NYT "Dune Babies" link IS a review. Just wondering.... --SandChigger (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Yikes, sorry about the confusing edit and edit summary! I did intend to get rid of the "Dune 7 ideas" link and also the (it wasn't pointing to a specific page and the books are out). Regarding the NYT review, you are right — I was looking at both Hunters and Sandworms and thought I was looking at the Sandworms article. I'd prefer if it were quoted rather than just listed as a link, but I suppose we should preserve the link to allow someone to do just that in the future. — TAnthonyTalk 00:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[]
OK. As they say over here, "Sometimes even monkeys fall from trees". (=Even pros make mistakes!) :) --SandChigger (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[]

re: Template:Non-free image data

Just a question... but is this one 'bot proof?

The reason I ask is that is isn't generating a link to Category:Non-free images with valid backlink which {{Non-free media rationale}} does. Without that, I believe there are 'bots that will be tagging the 500+ images currently using "image data" as without a valid FUR under IC10c.

- J Greb (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[]

Thanks; I haven't been on much for the holidays, and a bot seems to have removed that function yesterday while changing the category of the template itself ... fixed now, I believe. — TAnthonyTalk 05:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[]
FYI, in case you're now monitoring these templates at all, it's the {{Non-free image rationale}} template — not {{Non-free image data}} — that includes "Article" and "Purpose" and thus the categories in question. Thanks. — TAnthonyTalk 18:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[]
To be honest I was working backward from Image:WWMax.png. At the time of my querie, it had the 2 part ID templates up, but the backlink cat wasn't there. Since the templates are your work, I came here to see if you had run into any troubles.
Since the concern has been addressed (the cat is showing up on the image page) it's a moot point.
Question on a slight tangent though... Why id the "Replaceability" argument in the template for "use" portion and not the template for the overall ID? - J Greb (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[]
As far as the "Replaceable" parameter, I was thinking that there are cases where this could vary by the nature of the use. Like, a non-free photo of Jennifer Grey from a film before her nose job might be used in the article about the actress to illustrate that point, and while that can be explained in "Purpose," the fact that it is impossible to now take a photo of her with her old nose would probably need to be explained/justified, and I would think "Replaceable" would be the place. But perhaps that would be a rare occurance that could be worked around, and I should make that change (while keeping the function active for templates already in use). — TAnthonyTalk 04:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Check this out

[2] So we are nothing more than a vanity project in the minds of some editors? What is up with that? IrishLass (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Sorry, this got lost in my Talk page while I was away, I've just left a belated comment about this at User talk:AnmaFinotera. — TAnthonyTalk 01:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[]


Hi, I'm commenting a bit late on this archived conversation you had regarding WP:SOAPS; IrishLass had mentioned it and it got lost in my Talk page. In any case, I feel like I have to clarify something regarding your perception of the Project. We are well aware that it is a descendant Project of TV, but it certainly allows us to focus efforts on improving the articles in this genre which previously were lost in the thousands of TV pages. The fact that you notified the TV Project about the article IrishLass mentioned and no one got involved sort of proves my point that the general membership of TV isn't concerned with the genre. And I don't think you can call it a "vanity project" any more than the TV project itself. — TAnthonyTalk 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[]

  • shrug* I disagree. I think SOAPS should be a workgroup under television (are there any non-television soap operas? Genres don't need separate projects anymore than individual shows and after seeing what the SOAPs project calls improvement, it seems to have no disregard for its "parent project" or existing Wikipedia guidelines and policies, filling the encyclopedia with literally thousands upon thousands of articles on episodes and characters that never should have been created. Few to none peet WP:EPISODE, WP:FICTION, or WP:N. If there were a system in placed, I'd recommend the project be forced back down to a work group so it can fully be under the TV project for better oversight. As for notification, that isn't my job. I "notified" TV by including it in the deletion sorting because I'm in the Television project. I do the same for any other TV article I AfD or find while browsing the AfDs. I do the same for few other projects I'm a member of. I do not del sort for other projects. Those projects should have people watching the AfDs same as we do. And since any SOAPS AfD would also be in the Television AfD, it probably be even easier just to watch the TV ones. But that's up to y'all since you want to be a standalone project. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I actually agree with some of your points; many people who edit soap-related articles regularly are merely adding miniscule plot details, listing distant relatives and creating articles for soap opera infants — but the bulk of those are IP editors who aren't even part of the Project. We are relatively small and just gaining momentum again, but we do have overall goals that include making soap articles fully compliant with the usual TV and fiction policies. We've begun actively merging and cutting articles and changing tense in an initial "cleanup" phase, and have been slowly identifying articles and implementing the necessary references and real-world context with notability in mind. The first standout achievement of the Project is Pauline Fowler, the first soap article to achieve Featured status. We generally get what needs to be fixed, it's just a daunting task.
This Project was definitely created before my time and I imagine before the concept of task forces was widely known, and I could see it morphing into one in the future. But I feel like you may be thinking this upstart, specific little Project came along and "stole" a bunch of TV articles. In fact, when I came along in May 2007 and added the Project to WP 1.0, it had about 300 articles, hardly any of which had a WP:TV banner. I spent many hours scouring through categories and such tagging articles for the Project — I think we're up to like 2900 right now — and few of them had any WP banners at all, let alone a WP:TV one. A number of these articles probably have no right to exist, but many were actual series, and WP:TV had not adopted them yet. Step one in cleaning house is seeing what you've got and organizing, right? Your point about oversight aside, I don't think WP:TV needs the burden at this point. — TAnthonyTalk 03:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Pamela on OLTL

I have a source for the spelling of Pamela "Stewart". It is a magazine clipping that I scanned, but it seems that I can't post it here. (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[]

OK, but don't you think, considering the more numerous sources that spell it "Pamela Stuart," your one magazine may be wrong? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but "Jeb Stuart" is unchallenged and she got the name by "marrying" him, so common sense alone says it's a typo. Why don't we wait until after she appeaars tomorrow and see if the show or the website solve the debate. — TAnthonyTalk 04:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[]
Okay, sure. With this being Friday, she will most likely be in the closing credits, so I'll check there as well. (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[]
She was credited as "Pamela Stewart" in the closing credits. I also found an online source. (talk)
They did indeed, but they also credited Tari Signor as "Tar Signor" so I have little faith in the editor who prepares the credits. I work on another soap and it's one of those things that one person does and few people check. In any case, I'm curious to see if they fix their mistake. — TAnthonyTalk 02:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[] backs up the historical spelling, and the references obviously uses the mistaken credit from 1/18 because it happens to have a screen capture on the page! I'm a perfectionist and normally I would go with "onscreen," but I've been wtahcing the show for over 20 years, they screwed up. — TAnthonyTalk 02:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[]
For being a perfectionist, you sure do know how to spell "watching". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[]
Just goes to prove, typos are common. — TAnthonyTalk 03:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[]
Oh, and you spelled "accurate" wrong right before you called me a moron. — TAnthonyTalk 03:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[]
I never said that I was a perfectionist...And the closing credits on 1/18 didn't say "Tar Signor", it said "Tari Signor". The letters are so small that sometimes it looks like an error in spelling or a different name. But it did say Tari. And I apologize for calling you a moron. It was uncalled for. (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[]
I put a different footnote back as a compromise, but I assure you, when I did a screen cap of the credits, it very clearly says "Tar." I will totally email it to you if you want. The credits did say "Stewart" though, which is totally wrong and even spelled it "Stuart" for Friday's show, but it is what it is. — TAnthonyTalk 14:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[]

Liz Coleman fix

Thanks for the help. First time creating a page. 65852002o (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[]
No problem, thanks for writing it. However ... I'm actually merging the article into One Life to Live minor characters, as WP:SOAPS has begin an ongoing effort to consolidate articles, especially for minor characters and those no longer on the series in question. — TAnthonyTalk 00:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[]


From [User talk:]

Just so you know, changing dates between "Euro" [[5 February]] [[2008]] and "American" [[February 5]] [[2008]] formats is unnecessary, because they display the same way (5 February 2008 and February 5 2008) based on user preferences. The difference is only visible in the edit view. — TAnthonyTalk 04:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[]


From User talk:

I'm not going to revert your recent OLTL edits, but what does how long a link has been red have to do with it? Per the Manual of Style, "links do not have an expiration date, beyond which they must be 'fixed.' "If there is a reasonable chance an article will be created (and cast, staff and crew of network television shows are potentially notable), the links should stay red so that they are active when the article is created. Some are just nonexistent because their subjects aren't "sexy" enough, not that they're not notable or deserving. I mean, Linda Gottlieb directed Dirty Dancing, she should probably have an article, and when someone gets around to create it, she won't be backlinked properly to OLTL because you don't like to see red. It'd be one thing if you were picking and choosing based on notability, but you're not. And by the way, linking January and 2006 or whatever has no value, it should be January 2006. And sorry if I sound like a jerk, don't mean to. — TAnthonyTalk 03:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Infoboxes via AWB

Before you get going to far, I wanted to let you know that the infobox is supposed to go before all article content (with the exception of tags or disambig links). Right now you seem to be adding them after the lead paragraph, which is incorrect. — TAnthonyTalk 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[]

I fixed Jason Graae if you want to see what I mean. — TAnthonyTalk 17:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[]

—I was following one of the guidelines for formatting biographical articles (can't remember which one offhand) that suggested the infobox should appear after the introduction if possible and only in the upper right as a last resort. So I have been placing it in the upper right for very short articles, and after 1-2 paragraphs if there is a suitable amount of material, mostly making an esthetic judgement on how it appears best. Leofric1 (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Point taken, I do see guidelines to that effect at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Design and usage. I have just never seen a biography article that didn't have the infobox up top! As a matter of fact, I was just choosing featured articles and random, and every one with an infobox I viewed "violates" these guidelines as far as placement goes. WikiProject Biography doesn't seem to have any recommendations that contradict the MOS guidelines, though, so by all means carry on! Thanks for your hard work. — TAnthonyTalk 18:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[]

OLTL and Addie

Hey there! I left this in the Cramer family Talk Section too, but I was wondering what you thought about working up a new page or at least an entry in "Minor Characters" for Addie Cramer? She's become such a vivacious and great supporting character since her recovery IMO and I think she deserves a bit more. I didn't know who else to talk to since I'm such a n00b. Thanks for listening.Jbt1138 (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Sorry, I meant to respond on the Cramer page ... yeah, I could see her on the "minor characters" page, but kind of want her to do something first, LOL. — TAnthonyTalk 21:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]
On the second thought, the "Minor char" page is really for miscellaneous characters not necessarily related to core familes; Addie should really stay where she is, but in a slightly expanded section. Cassie and Melinda also redirect there. I created the article as a chronological overview of the family, but I envision a slight overhaul separating these three characters out a little better. Give me a little time. ;) — TAnthonyTalk 21:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Sounds good! Maybe I can dig up a picture of Laura Koffman.Jbt1138 (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I'm on a search for pics myself; remember, screenshots are preferred over promotional images, those usually fail fair use. — TAnthonyTalk 21:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[]


Hello - I'm afraid this is a common misinterpretation of the policy; minimal use really does mean minimal per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8; a FAQ here may also be useful. Black Kite 00:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[]

The article isn't really a list, and no offense, but an FAQ on your own page doesn't satisfy me. — TAnthonyTalk 00:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Further, the link provided in your FAQ includes a comment that "List of characters in Neon Genesis Evangelion is more reasonable; it uses one image per character to identify the characters ... since one image would be allowed per article if these were split into separate articles, I think it can be defended." — TAnthonyTalk 00:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[]

I am not trying to start an edit war, and I certainly see your point, but if the policy is up for interpretation, what makes yours the correct one? At least half of these characters were contract players for years, they were assembled into this article pending expansion to keep the character article clutter down. Each character section here is the destination of the character links elsewhere; I could break them out into individual articles but it seems unnecessary. I am willing to compromise and remove some of the images by character importance, but clearing them all out is unnacceptable. — TAnthonyTalk 18:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[]

  • Hi - it's not my interpretation of policy, it's the Wikimedia Foundation's. WP:NFCC is a policy page. To answer your point, one image would certainly be allowed per character if the article was split out into individual articles, but this doesn't apply here since the characters aren't notable enough to have their own articles (though some of the actors are). Yes, the FAQ is a user subpage of mine, but I find it's the easiest way to help people confused by the policy (which I admit, isn't written particularly well, even if the meaning is clear) to certain problems they may be having. The problem really lies in the existence of non-free images to begin with. In an ideal world, all our images would be free, but unfortunately there are times when there are no free replacements for some fair-use images which are necessary to increase understanding in an article. Thus, the Foundation can't really say "zero non-free images in all articles" or "A maximum of one non-free image in every article" because there will always be some major article to which it doesn't apply (logos, for example, are problematic). Because this hasn't been enforced strongly enough in the past - it wasn't until March 2007 that the Foundation put it's foot down on this matter - many articles have gained many non-free images (there are still over 1,000 articles with more than 15 non-free images in them, 95+% of which violate the policy). Because this has been the status quo, understandably many editors have been reluctant to see the images removed from articles. In the end, though, minimal must really mean minimal in all articles. Black Kite 19:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[]
It's your interpretation of "minimal" I'm taking issue with. Many of these characters could actually be spun out into their own articles, but why have a bunch of stubs pending expansion when you can keep them in one place? I have articles and other coverage to assert notability but only so much time! I am currently removing images and considering breaking out sections, please know that I take your concerns seriously and give me a little time today. — TAnthonyTalk 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[]
No problem. Black Kite 20:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Promotional images

Posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use; no response as of 14 August 2008

I'd like an idea what the current thinking is regarding the use of "promotional" images for television and film articles, specifically the ones that really get used on Wikipedia — studio-produced character images lifted from websites. I had been advising people at WP:SOAPS that screencaps are preferred over these types of promo images, more or less based on this ifd and a series of related ones at that time. While Abu badali's methods have been criticized and he seems currently inactive, I find some merit in his argument that the bulk of these images were not created as part of a "press kit" to necessarily be used by other media, but in fact to promote these series and films on their own sites or in areas of their own choosing. In fact, the websites' terms of service (like NBC's) flat out forbid reuse of content elsewhere.

At this time, there seems to be no language anywhere in the fair use guidelines for images discussing this topic specifically, and the addition of the "image_has_rationale" parameter in the {{Non-free promotional}} template suggests that they are acceptable in a broader sense than before, perhaps as the result of some discussion somewhere. And yet the recent template tfd suggests that the issue is still controversial.

I do not seek to "outlaw" these images entirely, as they are certainly useful in many cases, especially where a screencap may be unavailable or not sufficient to illustrate a particular point. But in the presence of a screencap of comparable value, I'm curious about the legal and fair use comparisons. Perhaps this is being debated somewhere? In any case, if a guideline or at least "rule of thumb" has not been established, something should be established and set down someplace where it can be referenced by editors. Thanks in advance. — TAnthonyTalk 18:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Gary Tomlin

Hey TAnthony... A follow up on the Gary Tomlin article... He may have left the crew, but the episodes directed by Gary are still airing on DirecTV. Here is a list of directors for January 2008 ( He continued directing into February too. DirecTV airs only 3 episodes of PSSN a month, so I guess that's why Tomlin's work is still on. Dmarex (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[]

"No, you're an idiot"

(The smiley isn't working out!) :D (There!)

A bit stressed out? Hang in there! --SandChigger (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[]

LOL, I couldn't resist responding to "hello i am the best" ... — TAnthonyTalk 02:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Family and relationship info

I don't think that the family and relationship info should be in some infobox. it should be out in open like everything else. Somebody please do something about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Gemini (talkcontribs) 07:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]

I actually like the infobox idea, as it was something we developed consensus for during work on the Pauline Fowler article, which is now at Featured status. Can you please explain more as to what you don't like about it? --Elonka 08:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]
I love it. It makes the articles cleaner and it was discussed before it was done. I think TAnthony can find the previous discussion. I know he'll agree that it is in there and looks better (since he took the time to create the infobox). It cleans up the articles and makes them look better and more encyclopedic. I agree with Elonka, it stays where it is. IrishLass (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]
Besides being more visually appealing, the endless lists within the article actually negatively impact an article's quality when we're talking about assessments and such. That's how it came about with Pauline Fowler, and that article obviously went up to Featured Status. But really, any important relationships should already be noted in an article naturally, like the character's parents and siblings and spouses as they relate to storylines. It's really unnecessary to list someone's adopted great-grandchild within the article if the fact isn't worthy enough to be mentioned in a plot summary area. Anyway, the info is still available. — TAnthonyTalk 16:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[]
Well I don't like it, because it doesn't make any sense to me. For one, Joey Buchanan's article has a lot of space and his family and relationship info should be on the article, not some stupid info box. it should be a section just like it was before. So all that I am asking is to make it like it was. King Gemini
You are missing the point, which is that according to WP guidelines, lists are discouraged within articles, especially trivial ones such as these. Notable relationship info is already mentioned within the text of the article; the reader doesn't immediately need to know that Cord Roberts is Joey's his adopted brother if they've never even shared a storyline. Soap character articles already strain the limits of notability in most cases (the Kevin and Joey articles have absolutely no real-world references) and if they are dominated by these lists, they risk deletion. Specifically, the Relationship lists were challenged by unbiased editors assessing the Pauline Fowler article, which ultimately rose to featured status. Believe me, I think the information is notable, but we have to present it in the best way possible to preserve our articles. — TAnthonyTalk 05:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Relationship lists

From User talk:King Gemini

Hey there, thanks for your ongoing participation in WP:SOAPS. I wanted to let you know that I've removed your Relationship lists and restored the infobox in Joey Buchanan and Kevin Buchanan. The Project has an ongoing effort to move these relationships into the collapsible area of the infobox rather than have them as an exhaustive list. This is a result of the Pauline Fowler peer review and other discussions, which have basically identified these lists as trivial. We want to preserve the information in the most unobtrusive way, as their presence has actually contributed to the deletion of articles under certain circumstances. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Prose vs. lists and Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Character relationships for our "guidelines" and links to the WP guidelines that spawned them. I also encourage you to monitor the Project talk page, as we often discuss issues which put soap articles under scrutiny. Thanks. — TAnthonyTalk 16:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Why did you remove my work homie? I don't like that. Leave my work alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Gemini (talkcontribs) 21:13, March 4, 2008
  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
Listen "homie," I've explained here why I reverted your misguided edits, and will continue to do so as long as you insist on adding the detrimental lists. This is not personal. — TAnthonyTalk 05:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[]
Don't mock me. It sickens me. The King Gemini (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[]
I'm not mocking you, I just don't like your tone. Telling me you don't like your work reverted means nothing when you are wrong. I understand your preference for the lists, but understand that the rest of us at the Project are trying to look at the big picture, which is preserving the articles. There are a lot of editors out there trying to get rid of many of the soap articles, and to be honest, they have grounds. And the lists aren't helping. — TAnthonyTalk 05:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[]
Seriously, I don't want to get in a fight with you over this, we appreciate your participation in the Project. I like having the info available too, but it is just unnecessary and detrimental to the articles in list form. Please try to understand our reasons. — TAnthonyTalk 06:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[]
I don't want to get in a fight over this either. I just don't understand why my work has to be reverted into some stupid info box The King Gemini (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[]
I'm sorry, no one means to belittle your work. It's just that the lists have been pinpointed as problematic. The information is still there, just not taking up the entire body of the article. In the cast of Joey, the article itself mentions his parents and Kevin and Dorian and Kelly, who are pretty much the people with whom he's had the most significant interaction. And it's simple to see who his other siblings are, if the reader is interested, by looking in the infobox. We could leave the lists, but then someone will come along, notice that Joey article is mostly a big list of random names, and tag it. And if we had to defend the notability of the article, we couldn't because it really isn't to anyone but us soap folks. — TAnthonyTalk 06:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Soap infoboxes

From User talk:Spanish lullaby

Many of us have spent hours upon hours fixing the infoboxes from Character to Soap Character and that includes adding all the relations which were formerly in a list at the bottom and making them consistent. With soaps relationships are never cut and dry and in this world names are rarely gender specific. Then there are characters with two fathers so a step and father notation are appropriate. As for brothers and sisters, the infobox indicates all the relations and who they are related through. Your changes did a disruption to the Ethan Winthrop infobox. They don't clutter it, they define it. The infoboxes replace the lists that used to be at the bottom so more information is required/necessary in the boxes. KellyAna (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[]

There is no need to tell me about the long hours spent trying to improve soap character pages; I, too, have spent many long hours merging minor character pages, fixing infoboxes, and improving the grammatical quality of articles. I understand your position, and I apologize if I have caused some sort of massive disruption, but when I check the sample soap character infobox at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Templates, only parents and other relatives are given parenthetical explanations. Perhaps a decision was made somewhere else, and the sample infobox was never updated, but, in my opinion, if a reader wants to know how Ethan and Jessica are siblings, they can simply compare the two characters' articles and see that they share the same father; to add (half-sister, via Sam) is superfluous. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I'll send TAnthony a note but for as long as I've been here we've included the parenthetical denotation of relations. We don't force readers to tromp through other articles to see relations when we can put it in any infobox available with a simple notation. No reference document that I know of forces that thought process. KellyAna (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[]
Okay, I just looked at the "example" and there were a few errors. I've fixed it based on little things over the last few months. This should straighten it out. KellyAna (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[]
KellyAna, I disagree with most of your notations and seem to share Spanish lullaby's feelings about this. However, I understand that we just have conflicting personal preferences, and for now I think we should just do it article-by-article based on the preferences of the editors who monitor them.
My basic argument is just to keep the infoboxes as uncluttered as possible; every bit of extra detail about the characters listed doesn't have to be noted if it is of limited importance in context and can be found by simply following a link. If Ethan and Jessica are listed as Joe's siblings, we don't need to write "brother" and "sister" except to perhaps note special circumstances like "step-brother" or "half-sister." I don't see the necessity in "explaining" all of the connections either, like "Niece via Sally" because anyone who actually wonders how Tina is Michael's niece can peek at Tina's article. I feel the same way about the maternal/paternal designations, or naming the other parent of every child listed for a character. This isn't essential info that has to be available in the infobox. Also, "dated" and "affair" seem redundant and unimportant when characters are already listed under "Romances," and I think dates are important for marriages and romances.
But again, I won't mess with yours if you don't mess with mine; hopefully you and Spanish lullaby can compromise on whatever article(s) brought this issue up, but we've never really set an "official" way of doing it and I'm hesitant to. — TAnthonyTalk 06:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[]
I never ment to step on anyone's toes; I simply looked at the sample infobox and was under the impression that its style was to be used in all infoboxes. I would like to suggest, however, that Sarah, Jane, and Jonathan be wikilinked — they each have their own section at Children of Passions, which is where Ethan Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane redirects. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[]
No apologies are needed, I see this as a good thing; obviously KellyAna and I never realized we had conflicting ideas about this. Any kind of discussion is good if it makes WP better, and I'm sure some of KellyAna'a arguments will sway me on this as mine may her. She makes a good point that there's no need to drive readers around to other articles when information can easily be included in the infobox, but I now personally feel like the actual use/value of stuff like "half-sister via Sally" and maternal/paternal designations is outweighed by clutter it creates. Complicated situations can even be explained in a footnote rather than spelled out right ion the box.
KellyAna, the parenthetical notations have indeed been in use forever, but they pre-date the new infobox, which obviously includes relationship categories now. They are still useful in many cases, but I still feel like it's unnecessary to put "father" and "mother" when these characters are listed under "Parents." Still, looking at Ethan Winthrop, though I may have done it differently, I think most of your notes are fine with me because of his complicated relations with the Bennetts and Cranes. Of course, even if I totally disagreed I'd leave it alone, I'm obsessed with One Life to Live, LOL. — TAnthonyTalk 16:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[]

Carly Corinthos Jacks

From User talk:Spanish lullaby

Why would you recreate a page that was deleted just to redirect it the correct page? Now I have to as the admin to delete it AGAIN. KellyAna (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Why would you delete a page instead of redirecting it to the proper article? lists Carly as "Carly Corinthos Jacks", so it's not unreasonable that someone would search for her under than name. I didn't move the article, I simply made a redirect, and, considering all of the redirects to Carly Corinthos, I don't think that it was unreasonable. Wikipedia:Redirect didn't seem to contain anything opposing it, either. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[]
All the redirects were done by a vandal who is banned for good. That's why I asked why it would be remade. It was a simple question until SOMEONE turned it into a bigger deal than it is. KellyAna (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[]
If I may interject, that is the point of redirects, so that if someone ever uses it in a link, it will lead to the correct place. Creating a redirect is not the same thing as "recreating an article." And by the way, I just checked "What links here" and it seems as though the GH navbox has the link Carly Corinthos Jacks, and so appears on nearly every GH page! — TAnthonyTalk 23:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[]
It was deleted and reinstating a deleted page is against Wikipedia guidelines and it was deleted because of previous issues with a vandal / sock puppet. Please, TAnthony, don't interject in this, I asked a question and want to know why something was done, not your opinions on the painful situation. You weren't involved in the sock puppet issue and the pain that the page created. KellyAna (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[]
This has nothing to do with some vandalism issue, and you didn't "ask" a question -- you had a little fit. I'm going to fix the GH template in case you do have the redirect deleted so there isn't a big red link in the navbox. Someone unfamiliar with the past is going to end up recreating that redirect over and over as long as it's a possible name for Carly, because that is standard procedure. But by all means continue your steamrolling. — TAnthonyTalk 23:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[]
Excuse me but IT DOES. Okay, it does. You weren't involved, you didn't see what happened. You don't know. I asked a question, and you were rude calling it "a fit", and you've chosen to butt in for no good reason. It was a question and you're creating unnecessary issues over A QUESTION. KellyAna (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[]
Fixed the navbox but these articles all still link to Carly Corinthos Jacks. So make sure you fix them when you delete it again. — TAnthonyTalk 23:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Hey, I clearly don't want to start a war over something this stupid, but I am aware of what happened, and as much as I understand that you want to protect the article and avoid all that crap, you're fighting a losing battle have a redirect deleted, especially when it has so many articles linked to it. It's going to come back. And it really should, because it's useful. Someone may indeed search by that name or use that as a link, and when they see it's red they may even start creating a new article thinking it's not there. And restoring an article as a redirect really isn't the same thing as recreating it. I interjected because Spanish lullaby is a helpful new editor, and you and I are very alike: bossy and easily angered, LOL. Again, don't want to fight, but you can't blame Spanish lullaby for something any Wiki editor would do. — TAnthonyTalk 00:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Spanish Lulliby ISN'T a new editor. She's an editor with a name change, Charity McKay and has been here a while. You interjected because you couldn't let a simple question be answered by someone who it was asked to. It was a simple question and NO, you don't know the half of what happened with the Carly stuff. Not the HALF of it. You didn't even know Spanish Lullaby was Charity McKay and had been here for several years. KellyAna (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[]
I may have joined a few years ago (April 2005, I think), but, until recently, my edits have largely consisted of me correcting grammar in random articles that I searched or came across; I've only recently started participating more heavily in improving soap opera articles and I'm still learning all of the rules and regulations around here. You say that you asked a simple question, and maybe you feel that you did, but, to me, all of your questions and comments have come across as extremely hostile and argumentative. I, like you, am only trying to help Wikipedia, and I, like you, am bound to make mistakes at times — all that I ask is that my mistakes be accepted as being made in good faith. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[]
There you go again, spazzing because someone said you were wrong. And I'm sorry, but I think you're being a little overdramatic here. Do what you want, but if I had some across the redlink I would have created the redirect myself. If you change all the links I mentioned above, feel free to delete it and I'll leave it alone. But try to resist getting mad at the next person who recreates or talks about it, new editor or old.
LOL, Spanishlullaby, now I remember the change, you tricked me LOL. ;) — TAnthonyTalk 00:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[]
Haha, sorry, I didn't realize that the name change would be such a big deal. Charity McKay is a silly pseudonym that I came up with in the eighth grade, and I've been trying to slowly work my way away from it in recent months. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[]
I didn't get "mad" until you butted in unnecessarily. Next time maybe minding your own business and not getting between two editors for no reason would keep things calm and between two people. And I didn't get mad at her, I got mad at you and your butting in for no reason, or would it be false reasons because you assumed without verifying. KellyAna (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Spanish/Charity you didn't make a mistake, that was done by SOMEONE ELSE. I simply asked you a question that I felt you were competent enough to answer. Apparently others did not. KellyAna (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[]

OK, clearly I have the same compulsion as you — to have the last word — but listen to yourself! I perhaps shouldn't have said you had a "fit" or whatever, but Talk pages are public and I felt like I needed to interject. Sorry if you feel threatened by that, but editor has a right to comment on something they think is wrong. I didn't mean to agitate you, but look at how mad you're getting at me because I said you're wrong. Maybe you need a break. — TAnthonyTalk 00:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[]
LOL, I love how long this discussion is, hahaha. — TAnthonyTalk 00:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[]
Deity of other people expletive. I didn't feel expletive threatened, I just felt your overwhelming need to butt in for no reason. It's exasperating. You can't just let a question be asked and answered without butting in. Yes, talk pages are public, but you didn't need to "interject" under false assumptions. Oh, and insane people are mad, I'm aggravated by your constant "interjections for no reason." KellyAna (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[]
I am the first to admit that I can be perceived as a defensive, bossy know-it-all at times, and I get very annoyed when articles I monitor are messed with by vandals and stubborn editors who really don't know or care what they're doing. I was probably even a little snippy at the beginning of this. But I'm not going to pretend I haven't seen you flying around here on your broom with your condescending and snarky tone. It's very amusing how you're annoyed by my interjections here and elsewhere and yet you can't help but scold everyone over every little thing. Maybe you were just asking the question, but both Spanishlullaby and I perceived your exasperation. I don't comment on everything I disagree with, or revert every edit I don't love, but in this case I was arguing on her side because you clearly intended to delete the redirect.
We all know you're a valuable editor, and I am glad you're out there policing articles with vigilance because there are so many vandals out there, and soap fans who have no clue about Wiki guidelines and compulsively mess with articles. But maybe you should pick your battles; some things you should just let go. And when you talk about all the "pain" caused by the Carly issue, I am wondering if you remember that you're talking about a WP article about a soap opera character, not a starving orphan. — TAnthonyTalk 03:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[]
Starving orphan? By the gods, talk about over dramatic. You are just driving this to a point of ridiculous I've not ever seen on Wikipedia. You TELL me this is a battle. Really? I thought it was a QUESTION. You've made it more than it was. Your meddling made it an issue. It was a QUESTION. Why is it you are making so much out of a QUESTION? And since you are unaware, witches don't fly around on brooms, that's a fictitious stereotype perpetuated by the media just like gays..... Don't make me go there, it would be as you rude as you disparaging Wiccans with your broom comment. Let's not go to that level of insulting because I really don't need to insult gays to offset your insults to witches and wiccans. KellyAna (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Relationship lists

From User talk:

Hi, not sure if you're aware, but WP:SOAPS has added a collapsible section for character relationships to the {{Infobox soap character}}. This is part of the Project's ongoing task of removing unnecessary and excessive lists from soap articles. Various article assessments have determined that these lists negatively impact an article's quality. Many articles have not gone through the "transformation" yet, but please do not add new lists to articles without them. Thanks. — TAnthonyTalk 02:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[]


I just wanted to apologize for the whole kerfluffle that went down on my talk page. However, I, personally, really appreciated you stepping in — despite the fact that I've been a registered member for a while, I still feel rather newbie-ish, and it was nice to know that I hadn't committed as massive a faux pas as I'd feared.  :) — Spanish lullaby (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Yeah, I guess I'd forgotten the name change, and your recent questions and work with photos and stuff gave me the impression you were "new." In any case, I've definitely found your recent work helpful and along my line of thinking.
No need to apologize, I probably should apologize for using your talk page for that extended argument! LOL, I could probably go on like that for pages and pages. I obviously admit that I can be stubborn and a know-it-all too, but I feel like she really has a hostile tone no matter the size of the issue. And she's so defensive I don't think she even takes time to comprehend what I'm trying to say. And that whole "by the gods" and wiccan business, LOL, that's when I realized she just isn't getting it, and is completely unreasonable. This is what separates us; I gave my opinion but I could care less if she deletes the damned redirect to avoid all the "pain" caused by it (LOL again). It does annoy me, however, that she'd had it deleted previously but didn't bother to fix all the links to it. It's like, why don't you spend more time doing constructive tasks like that, rather than revert and scold people for adding episode numbers a week in advance. Like who cares!
Thanks again for your hard work! — TAnthonyTalk 19:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[]


Thank you for backing me up, lol. I'm getting very stressed out. I just need to breathe a little. :) Alexisfan07 9 March 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 01:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[]

As you can see above, I had an exhaustive discussion with KellyAna on User talk:Spanish lullaby so I know how frustrating it can be. She means well, but I really don't think she sees that she is obsessing or being unnecessarily stubborn about unimportant things. I mean, what is her issue with switching the photo? And she really is, plain and simple, hostile about just about everything. I have resisted commenting on the Theresa name change because, frankly, I don't know why anyone is fighting about it, LOL. I actually want to agree with her, but she's being so unyielding. If some other people want to use Crane, who cares, let them do it! — TAnthonyTalk 02:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[]
But doesn't using Crane in the article title, simply in the article title, go against policy and verifiability? That's my position on it, article title only. KellyAna (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[]
I totally agree with you that if the most reliable online sources say one thing, that's what we should go with. And yet, adding "Crane" isn't really incorrect, so is it a bad thing? Is it likely to be challenged or cause a problem? With redirects, people will get to the article no matter what. I do get very annoyed when people move articles every time someone gets married, because obviously soap marriages never last long, but in this case I don't feel like it's worth getting upset over. But yes, you're really in the right here. — TAnthonyTalk 02:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[]
I would say in the body of the article adding Crane isn't a bad thing. Adding it to the title is. I've watched on and off for years and I've never heard her referred to as TLF Crane by anyone that watches the show. Which goes back to the common names policy. I know it's not "proof" but I did a random survey on a couple of boards I post on and neither vote was very "Crane" heavy when they think of Theresa's name. Granted, it's only a handful of people over the last hour and it's not proof, I know that, but as far as policy and verifiability go, Crane fails the test, doesn't it? I appreciate you saying I'm right, I do. Thank you. I get as annoyed as you when they move articles like that. I've got a harder one, EJ Wells. One week he's Wells the next he's DiMera and the following he's both. That page moves more than "Two Guys Move You" does. KellyAna (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[]
Yeah, the "common name" thing is impossible to prove either way, because it's not like most soap characters are talked about in the mainstream like Bill Clinton. And even if you amassed 100 soap magazine articles, it seems like it's sort of arbitrary based on the article and the writer, really. I actually left a comment in the discussion. — TAnthonyTalk 02:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[]


Sure, I'll help as I can. I see that there is definitely some trouble with incivility in edit summaries, but I haven't looked into it more than that. I'd recommend that you start here:

  • Read/memorize WP:DR
  • Always stay civil, never let yourself be goaded
  • Engage on the editor's talkpage
    • Start with a gentle good-faith comment. I find it helpful to try and picture the individual as someone who I used to respect, but whose behavior has recently become problematic. For example, picture them as a retired university professor who has gotten a bit old and slow, and may just be confused and frustrated. Or perhaps picture them as someone who is ill and on medication, and just needs some patience and guidance
  • Document, document, document. When you see unambiguous problems, post them to the editor's talkpage. Build a paper trail. Explain why the behavior is a problem, include a diff, link to the appropriate policy, and suggest how to do better. These posts serve multiple purposes:
    • They alert the editor that there's a problem
    • They are a good faith effort on your part to try and solve the problem (who knows, it may work!)
    • They alert other editors that there is a problem
    • If you have to proceed to another step of DR, those talkpage messages will be really helpful in documenting the history of the situation
  • If the problems are related to a specific article, consider an article RfC, even if you feel that you know how it'll turn out.
  • If the RfC doesn't do any good, suggest mediation
  • If mediation doesn't do any good, try a User Conduct RfC
  • ANI is also an option, but I'd only go there if you have a really clear and unambiguous case that a harried admin could come up to speed on the situation within a couple minutes -- they're not going to want to get involved with ambiguous cases
  • ArbCom is also an option, but they're going to want to see that all of the above steps have been tried first
  • If it helps, look at each clear unambiguous example of a problem, as another diff that you can use later. When you've got a dozen solid diffs saved up, presenting them all in one place is really powerful.

I've got a watch set on a couple of the pages, I'll try to keep an eye out, but I'm starting from zero. My first check was to the editor's talk page but I didn't see any cautions from you. I'd definitely start there.

If you're on IMs, feel free to send me a message, and I can give you further advice off-wiki.

Good luck, Elonka 03:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[]


For the love of the gods stop following me around Wikipedia. Can NO ONE "fight their own battles" without you commenting? I can't talk to one editor without you butting in. What the hell is with that? I don't need another stalker, I have enough already. KellyAna (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Okay everyone, enough with the name calling. Please try to get back to discussing articles, instead of each other. --Elonka 04:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[]
TAnthony, as a gesture of good faith, would you be willing to review your recent comments, and remove anything which might be considered uncivil or a personal attack? I think it might help de-escalate things here. --Elonka 04:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[]
KellyAna, no one is stalking you, you just aggravate everyone to the point that we have to respond. Everything here is public, and I refuse to let you steamroll everyone if I can help it. I do not want to attack you or anyone, but I don't feel like anything I have said is any more uncivil than what you consider everyday conversation. Elonka, I always admire your calm under pressure, but I'll have to really consider things before I rescind a single comment. — TAnthonyTalk 10:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[]
Elonka, of course I see your point, and yet KellyAna is now turning her own actions back on me and other editors; no one is "watching" or "stalking" her for some inappropriate reason, she attracts attention and criticism with every move she makes. Of course she doesn't want me looking in on what she's doing, most other people seem too intimidated by her to tell her when she's wrong. Which seems to be more often than not. I wouldn't care what she does if she wasn't committing irrational bad faith edits like in Sami Brady (The Rhani reverted here). The namecalling was inappropriate, but this kind of revert, without discussion and challenging reasonable sources, is KellyAna's typical M.O. — TAnthonyTalk 11:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[]
I've removed your comment on my page (where you admit to stalking me but lie to Elonka that you aren't) and reported you to her. Elonka said to stop and you obviously have no intention of doing so. Do not revert my removal and put it back. KellyAna (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[]

TAnthony, I realize that you think that KellyAna is the "party in the wrong" here, and I absolutely agree that some of her comments have been uncivil. However, some of your comments have been over the line as well. Often your posts are good, but I think they come off in a more confrontational way than what you intend. For example, "You are going to sabotage all soap articles" is a pretty clear implication of bad faith. "You are being unreasonable." "There is no inoffensive way of saying this, KellyAna, but you are becoming a bit of a nuisance with your behavior in general, from your snarky edit summaries to your completely unbelievable behavior on your own talk page." "You are truly out of control," "You aggravate everyone," "There are also several editors I feel she has terrorized and steamrolled lately." "I obviously take issue with her stubbornness." These kinds of comments (regardless of whether or not you feel that they are true) are the kinds of things which escalate a dispute, not de-escalate it. Further, they weaken your case considerably, because when a third-party reviewer comes in, they can't tell who's in the right and who's in the wrong. They just see two people yelling at each other, and you both look equally at fault.  :/

Your recent post to KellyAna's talkpage is pretty good, I hope that she will be able to take it in the proper spirit. For future reference though, you might want to use more of a "sandwich" approach on these. In other words, start with something positive, then say what you gotta say, and then end with something positive. When people read these, they often form a first impression from the first words, then they read the content, and then their final impression as to whether or not they're going to listen to you or write you off, will be based on the last thing you say. If you genuinely want to change behavior, remember that you're persuading, not just venting.

I hope you don't feel that I'm coming down on you too hard about this. I have huge respect for you and all the work that you do, and I know that your recent comments are more a case of "temporary frustration" than any kind of a longterm problem. I would, if possible though, like to see you give KellyAna another chance. She does a lot of good work, and as we both know, the soap articles can take all the help they can get! If we can figure out how to pull together as part of a team, where we're all adding our own strengths towards the overall mission (and covering for each other's weaknesses), I think that we, the articles, and Wikipedia would all reap the benefits.  :) --Elonka 20:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Thanks so much for your perspective and advice, of course I respect you immensely as an editor or I wouldn't have involved you. And I can't help but always look to your ever-evenhanded tone as an example! I think you realize that I usually figure out pretty quickly when to stop and let something play out on its own. I actually supported her position in the name change discussion at Talk:Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald, and yet it is impossible not to challenge some of the arguments she made there. I would and have chimed in on any similar discussion with any other editors. Yes, those comments above (and more) were certainly made in times of frustration, but as much as she wrings her hands over such "attacks," I cannot help but take issue with her blunt reverts and dismissal of any and all criticisms of them, as well as what I have referred to as "steamrolling." I believe each of those issues started out with a polite comment, to which she snarled, to which I snarled back. This definitely escalated because we happened to cross paths one too many times on the same articles in the course of a few days, and my watching her talk page and edits probably fueled my annoyance in general. But if we look at the recent articles involved in this mess, she pretty much has not conceded a single point, no matter the validity of the challenge. Even you're not right that much, LOL.
I try to give everyone a new chance every day, and I have certainly tried to do so with KellyAna and will continue to. I have complimented her vigilance and hard work. I did want to be a bit more positive in my last remarks to her, but I sort of figured that after all this I'd come off sounding fake. I have not see her apologize to anyone recently or extend an olive branch, it is all defensive outbursts and accusations of stalking. I realize that I have contributed to that by goading her, and yet, is it worse to let her do something I feel is detrimental to an article, or challenge her as aggressively as she defends her own actions, and take a chance on making her mad? I really do hope she takes my comments to heart, and I hope that she and all of our editors can focus more on improving articles and less on policing minute details. Although maybe the mass deletions which will eventually come would clean house a bit. — TAnthonyTalk 22:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[]
Thanks, and for what it's worth, I've been exactly where you are, so I understand what you're going through. All I can advise is, that the "leading by example" thing is really important. Rather than you waiting for her to apologize or extend an olive branch, I think it would be enormously powerful if you were to show the initiative on that, especially by deleting previous comments of yours which were out of line. Especially that "flying around on a broom" comment, I mean, c'mon.  :/ Plus, if you delete those comments, it can have other collateral advantages. Other editors will see you doing this, and when you refactor a comment, it both makes you look more mature, and it also provides an example for everyone else. New editors who are lurking and not yet participating, are paying attention to how more senior editors such as yourself, deal with a dispute. Assume that for every one person who is posting on a talkpage, that nine others are reading but not posting. So, if not a favor for me, could you "do it for the kids"? Either refactoring your comments, or just deleting posts which were made in the heat of anger, could have longrange benefits. :) --Elonka 23:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[]
Do you mean actually deleting sentences or entire discussions? I sounds like hiding the evidence, LOL. — TAnthonyTalk 04:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[]
Well, there are multiple ways to do it, depending on what you're comfortable with:
  1. You could <s></s> out the comments
  2. You could delete the comment, with an edit summary like, "Refactoring my post now that I've calmed down"
  3. You could delete the comment, and add a small comment after such as, "Post refactored, see <diff> for full version"
  4. You could delete the entire post, via one of the above methods. See also WP:REFACTOR
In terms of what you choose, think of it this way. Suppose someone said, "TAnthony is an idiot." Would you want the information to stay on the page? If they <s></s> the comment, would that make you feel better or worse? Basically, it seems to me like some of your comments to KellyAna have hurt her feelings. Granted, she's not reacting with language like, "Hey, ow," she's reacting by, as you put it, snarling, but it's obvious that she's seeing, and remembering, what you say, and from there the resentment just festers.
Or to put it another way: You've said these things, she's read them, you have both responded to it... What good is being done by leaving the comments in place? If you can point out a positive reason that the comments should stick around, I'd be interested in hearing it. But if the negative is outweighing the positive, it's probably worth rethinking things. Will the talkpages be more useful to other Wikipedians, with or without those comments there? --Elonka 04:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[]


Has there been a change in infoboxes lately? I got a message that they are "smaller" but I'm on a job site that uses IE and huge settings on their screens, so I can't tell. Do you know? IrishLass (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Someone seems to have changed the {{Infobox Television}} font size amidst other edits, but then it was changed back. The soap character box is unchanged. ;) — TAnthonyTalk 02:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Your questions were answered

WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard#Screen caps of end credits -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Dynasty middle names

Hey, thanks for your interest in the Dynasty character articles, but as noted in the main article, the middle names you are attempting to add are original research by Judith Moose that were never used in the series (and this inappropriate to add). Also, The Dynasty character template does not include an "Occupation" parameter (and does not need to), so adding that information is useless. Thanks. — TAnthonyTalk 23:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Red links

From User talk:

Please stop removing red links from articles ... they are perfectly acceptable per the Manual of Style and exist to encourage the creation of new articles. When these articles are created, the links to them are already in place. Obviously infant actors will probably not have articles anytime soon and can be unlinked, but an adult actor could presumably be deserving of an article at some point in the future. — TAnthonyTalk 15:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[]

From User talk:

Please stop with your unconstructive edits to List of One Life to Live cast members, you seem ill-informed about the status of certain performers and links. In addition, you continue to remove red links, which is inappropriate per the Manual of Style. The MOS asserts that they are perfectly acceptable and exist to encourage the creation of new articles. When these articles are created, the links to them are already in place. Obviously infant actors will probably not have articles anytime soon and can be unlinked, but an adult actor could presumably be deserving of an article at some point in the future. I recently restored links to some names in the "Celebrity guests" section which had previously been red links (like Kortney Kayle and Tito Puente, Jr.) and found the articles now created. It would have been helpful had the links already been in place. — TAnthonyTalk 04:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[]

One Life to Live images

From User talk:Carmaker1

FYI, just because you screen cap or even manipulate these images in Photoshop does NOT give you any rights of ownership to the point that you can bestow rights for their use on Wikipedia. ABC OWNS THESE IMAGES. Please do not assert otherwise. — TAnthonyTalk 04:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[]

BamBam's Emmy nomination

Hey, do you know where you got that statement from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences? I think it'd probably be nice to cite that. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[]

I believe the quote was from Soap Opera Digest but I actually have a copy of the letter from the Academy; I was thinking I could upload it to Photobucket to use as a source, as I've seen done with magazine articles, but that brings up Theresa Crane verifiability issues for me, so I don't know, LOL
OK, I can reveal my secret now ... since tomorrow is the last tape day of Passions, I can admit to those of you watching my page that I work for the show. I'll be striking everything for the next few weeks so let me know if there's any info I can dig up before it's boxed away, LOL. Not that anything I could tell you can be considered from a reliable source. Like obviously anything that can solve the Theresa Crane dilemma. — TAnthonyTalk 02:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[]
Wow, that's awesome! -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[]
Holy crap, that is fabulous. Before I start asking questions, what type of information do you have access to, and what can you reveal? — Spanish lullaby (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[]
LOL, I CANNOT tell you what's going to happen;) The show is airing thru like August in DirecTV, they're dragging it out. I just meant, if you want me to dig up the credits from show #405 or the last line of the 5th scene of the script for #6, LOL. — TAnthonyTalk 04:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[]
LOL, I figured as much. It was worth a shot, though. :P Honestly, all I'd like to ask is that you give James E. Reilly a massively mean glare for me should he ever descend from Olympus or wherever it is he seems to think he resides and make his way to LA. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[]
I have half a box of leftover business cards, anybody have a birdcage to line?? ;) — TAnthonyTalk 04:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[]
My biggest question is to JER, why did he make a show with a great backstory and wonderful characters then squander it all with storylines that never end, couples who are never happy, forcing even the most ardent fans of the show have a love-hate relationship with it? -- Dougie WII (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[]
LOL, we have ALL asked questions like that, especially now that we're out of work! But he works from home on the East Coast. — TAnthonyTalk 17:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[]
This so sad... I guess there's no hope left for the show? I just hope things were wrapped up properly if so. -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[]
I think the fans will be happy with it ... — TAnthonyTalk 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[]
Well, I must say good luck to you and all the other cast members and crew! It was great while it lasted. If I win the lottery I'll try to buy the rights and start again! -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[]
Same here... Passions has been a major part of my teen years, and I really appreciate everything that everyone involved with the show has done over the past nine years. Best of luck to you and everyone else in the future.  :) — Spanish lullaby (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[]
Hey, thanks to you both, it is a great bunch of people here and we have honestly had a lot of fun doing this show all these years. Everybody really appreciates the fans because they're so supportive and they're what have kept us going this long. We've had a nice run but this is what the TV business is, most shows don't last forever! — TAnthonyTalk 01:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[]
OH, HAIL NO, you little TARD =) ~ You got to work with Eric Martsoff (damn, I can't ever spell his name right) every day??? That's so freakin' cool (and I don't know how I missed this thread for so many days). So JER really is as reclusive as they say? Did you work there when Josh Ryan Evans died? That was one of the saddest days in my soap viewing. Josh, Douglass Watson (Mac from Another World), and MacDonald Carey were the saddest losses of NBC daytime. I am sorry about you being unemployed. That's rough in California. I hope you find something soon. Good luck in your job hunt. KellyAna (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[]
LOL, Eric's on camera RIGHT NOW but of course I can't say what he's doing or saying ;) Yeah, I have been here since the very beginning, it was definitely a starnge and sad time when Josh passed away. Thanks for the well wishes, I'll let ya know where I land next. ;) — TAnthonyTalk 01:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[]
Ahhhhhhhhhh is about all I can say to that. He's so hot. Hotter than James Scott (but I'll deny I said that forever). Wish him well too and I hope he ends up on a soap or show I like. Damn he's one fine man. YUMMMMMM!!! Okay, so you now know my major crush and why I stay away from his article because I'm not objective about it. He needs to join Days of our Lives and come to Burlington in August. In all seriousness, I know being out of work can suck, I hope you find something soon. Oh, if only you could get me Eric's autograph. His and Juliet Mills. I've loved her since Nanny and the Professor and she is my second all time fave Passions character. KellyAna (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[]
Many tears last night, but I think the fans will be happy with how it all turns out! You may even see me on camera, I'll let you know ;) Kelly, didn't get this until today, but we have a final party and I'll see what I can do ... — TAnthonyTalk 22:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[]
I don't know if you remember the Santa Barbara ending but I felt the most bad for the crew that they showed on the last ep. It was so sad. If you're one of those I'm going to bawl my eyes out. I'll miss Passions but I'm worried about you being out of work in California. Good luck and the Gods' speed to you. KellyAna (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[]
Thank you much, but don't worry, I'm awesome and will no doubt get another show right away, LOL. I'm not sure how it will look on screen, but if SB's crew made you tear up, you may want to have the tissues ready. ;) — TAnthonyTalk 07:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[]

So, what did you do for the show? Just curious. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[]

I'm the Production Manager, though not for long ;) — TAnthonyTalk 05:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[]

Was there any thought of moving the show to a weekly primetime show? I think it would do better there if it could be compressed into one weekly episode. NBC has nothing but crap in its primetime line up now. The only thing I regularly watch on NBC now is Meet the Press -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[]

We were never a huge hit so I think they just gave up on it. Realistically, there is no reason for them to have thought we would do better at night, and it would be more expensive to produce ... but who knows? The novela thing seems to only work for the Latin culture, however. It's just a shame because we were such a well-oiled machine. — TAnthonyTalk 23:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[]
Honestly, who thought it would work on DirecTV? Half the time my DVR won't even record it during the week or records the same show three times. I know a lot of people who rely on DVR for their soaps. I took to catching it on the weekends because it was reliable most weekends. I wish they had just cut a deal with SoapNet instead of DTV and I had DTV before it switched over. KellyAna (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[]

Dougie, you won't believe this, but I actually have the plaque from your image, I'll pose for pics with it later, LOL. — TAnthonyTalk 01:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[]

LOL that's great! I was actually going to ask you about that but never got around to it. Glad you got it! -- Dougie WII (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[]


  The Soap Opera Barnstar
You have been awarded the Soap Opera Barnstar for your contributions to Passions both on Wikipedia and in real life! Dougie WII (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[]
LOL, thanks! — TAnthonyTalk 05:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[]
Thank you! I really did love that show. -- Dougie WII (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[]

My Soap Opera Userboxes

Why are you taking the images out of my soap opera userboxes? The King Gemini (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[]

I left a message on your talk page before I did it, and also explained in the edit summaries. Your soap opera userboxes violate fair use policy, as fair use images may only be used in articles (not user pages) per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy Item 9. — TAnthonyTalk 02:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[]

That's a stupid policy. The King Gemini (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[]

LOL. You wouldn't think so if you were the copyright owner of the images. — TAnthonyTalk 19:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[]
Wait. You own the images? The King Gemini (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[]
Haha, no. I just meant, the use of the images may not seem like a big deal to you, but it is to the owners of the shows. The whole reason we police the use of images so tightly is that if there is a lot of "abuse" going on at Wikipedia, the eventual lawsuits would disallow us from using any fair use images at all. And most of the images here are fair use, meaning they are owned by someone who has not granted permission for their use. Minimal use at a small size in certain instances is allowable, but that's it. — TAnthonyTalk 21:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[]
What kind of abuse has been going on? The King Gemini (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[]
Random people constantly upload and use images inappropriately, which violates copyright and fair use laws. If we don't monitor and prevent this, it opens Wikipedia up to lawsuits by the copyright owners. So it is nothing personal, but images are only allowed to be used here in very specific ways. — TAnthonyTalk 02:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[]
Oh, OK. I didn't know about that. Images get used inappropriately? How? The King Gemini (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[]


Do you know what real-life town was used in Passions as Harmony in the closing credits, etc.? Thanks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[]

Yeah, the original establishing shots (and some exterior scenes) were shot in Camden, Maine. — TAnthonyTalk 22:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[]
Thanks, I added it to the article. -- Dougie WII (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[]

List of Dune Planets

Heya. I made a change to the level for the planet entries and added a new one for Al Dhanab. Look OK? --SandChigger (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[]

T`ea Delgado

Thanks for holding off on creating this article or creating it, then redirecting it to List of One Life to Live characters. I know I basically promised that I would create this article, and you've been patiently waiting.

Well, I did write this article three months ago, as well as her portrayer's, Florencia Lozano. The thing computer broke down (though I really shouldn't be surprised, considering it was my ragged, not good, computer). It literally, no lie, broke down seconds before I was about to copy and paste the articles from my Word document. It happened right after I uploaded pictures of Lozano as the character and Lozano with Roger Howarth as the couple T&T (just check my edit history).

Anyway, I was pissed as hell (naturally)! I do not want to write all of that all over again, and am sending that computer to a guy who can hopefully retrieve those documents while fixing up that computer.

If they are retrieved, I feel you'll be pleased with the articles, more so than two rewrites. Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[]

My Buchanan Family article

Hey, I never got to thank you for updating my article on the Buchanan Family. Thanks. I really appreciate it. The King Gemini (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[]

Dorian Lord

Their is an episode in which Dorian found out Victor Lord was alive and the issue of her inheritance including Llanfair came up. The court ruled everything was rightfully Dorian's due to in legal standards after 7 years of abandonment, the marriage is legally dissolved. If you've noted like I did (due to me being a OLTL fan) Dorian married Herb within those 7 years thus their marriage was invalid. Every other marriage she had came after Victor could be legally declared dead! Same thing happened with Asa & Olympia Buchanan, but because of Llanviews 7 years LAW, only his 1st marriage to Pamela Oliver Stuart was invalid . —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBanks (talkcontribs) 03:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[]

bit More about you!

YOu're brave to let people know your sexuality. Thanks for helping me with the articles on GH. Your cool. How old r u? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[]

Ah, not so brave, I live in LA where I'm very used to it not being an issue ... I'm older than I look, LOL. — TAnthonyTalk 03:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[]

Minor minors on General Hospital

I think you're right. Putting children who don't have notable storylines of their own into one article might not be a bad idea. The Children of Days article is just... awful, but can be improved. I think an entry with all of these kids can cut down on the GH cruft nicely. AniMate 06:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[]

Bianca Montgomery

Your comments regarding this article's length would be very much appreciated on its talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[]

Never mind. If you do not already know, it has been taken care of. Flyer22 (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[]
Thanks for showing up there anyway. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions you have to improve that article. And thanks for often being so supportive of me. You understand what I go through in taking these articles from merely plot summaries to something that is halfway decent, good or great...and I truly thank you for that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[]
Listen, you're just about the only regular soap article contributor who understands that these article need to be more than a plot summary and some exhaustive family details, and you put in the time and effort to really improve these articles. I appreciate that a lot. Can we clone you? LOL. — TAnthonyTalk 20:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[]

General Hospital images

Hi TAnthony. Thanks for reminding me that I owed you an answer - I had lost track of your message. Sorry about that.

The specific images I deleted were tagged as promotional images, which isn't an appropriate license for images that are not for commercial use. Promotional images are less restricted than that, so they were deleted because they had an inappropriate license applied. In addition, these particular images could not have a fair use rationale written for them because they were images of living people and so they are clearly replaceable by freely licensed images. The attempt at a fair use rationale for those images claimed that because the pictures were of the characters, they weren't replaceable. I don't believe this is a defensible position since a picture of the actor who plays the character could clearly be obtained and would adequately illustrate the character they play. The only exception I could think of would be if the actor only appeared in very heavy prosthetics to play the role.

Hope that helps some. Best, Gwernol 22:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[]

While it has been established that fair use images are not appropriate in a living performer's article to represent what that person looks like, it is longstanding convention in fictional character articles that screen captures be used (sparingly) under fair use to represent the characters themselves. A freely-licensed image of an actress on the street does not adequately represent a character she has played, prosthetics or not. An image from a Harry Potter film is an image of Harry Potter the character, technically not an image of Daniel Radcliffe. You seem to be saying that no fair use image should be used to illustrate a character, and while that may be a valid opinion, there is no specific wording in policy that backs it up to the point where such images can be removed from articles or deleted without discussion. The prohibition specifies living people. Articles like Pauline Fowler rose to Featured status with their images intact because characters are not the same as living people, even if they are portrayed by them.
If you are referring to the use of non-screen captured images like posed publicity photos, the whole reason I asked the question is that I know of no explicit prohibitions in this regard either. I have seen arguments revolving around web site terms of use, or their promotional nature vs. actual program content, but it is a grey area that is not spelled out in policy. Even the language in Template:Non-free promotional is vague enough to arguably allow their use to represent a character. — TAnthonyTalk 02:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[]


I just wanted to try to give it an English translation; I mean, we know what CHOAM means, but it's not something that makes immediate sense in English. Even if it is OR, personally I thought it was a pretty good translation: 'The Partnership of High-Profit Traders'. Rolls off the tongue. HalfShadow 18:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[]

I agree, it's a great translation and probably pretty accurate. But "defining" it like that makes assumptions. I'm just as unforgiving with editors who like to "translate" Herbert's use of Arabic terms. But if you really feel strongly about it, feel free to bring it up on Talk:CHOAM, I may very well be out-voted by the rest of the Dune police ;) — TAnthonyTalk 20:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[]
Oh, I know; I wasn't expecting it to last. I was just doing it to see if I could come up with a logical translation. I just though an english translation would be nice. HalfShadow 22:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[]

Red Links

Thanks Anthony, for the message. I removed the red links as I was adding in links for a British show a few months ago and then a registered user took the brackets off as they were Red Links. I guess it is different strokes for different folks. It probably depends on the "editor" of the page. (There always seems to be one on each TV page at least). For example, in the comings and goings section of the Days of Our Lives page, the "editor" does not find it necessary to place people who do not have articles in that particular section and only use people with articles.

It is hard to keep up with all the show pages I frequent. Some like Red links and some don't. I'm sorry for the removal of said links, however there are a few people in the list without the brackets around their name, such as in the special guests and deceased OLTL actors section.

Thanks again and keep up the good work (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)samusek2[]

Thanks for your response; you're right, every page seems to have a handful of editors who "enforce" certain conventions, but I would argue that any deletion of red links like this, in general, is against policy and kind of short-sighted. I've purposely stayed away from most Days pages because there are/were a few "nutty" editors who ignore all input and obsess about plot details, LOL. In the case of the OLTL page, I think the only unlinked actors are the youngest children, who presumably won't be notable enough for their own articles in the foreseeable future, and a minor character or two with no last name. There I go, nitpicking again ;) Thanks again. — TAnthonyTalk 17:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[]
Ah, just caught your change ... you're right about the guests stars, I guess I don't look there all the time, and the red links are continually removed and added in this list. As far as the dead people go, if they ain't notable now, they won't be in the future, LOL! — TAnthonyTalk 17:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[]

Dune (novel)

I noticed that you removed mention of the band Shai Hulud from the cultural section of the Dune page because they are not a notable band? They are a major label band, quite famous, and have an extensive wikipedia page:Shai Hulud (band) I think they are an excellent example of the cultural influence of Dune, and are entirely relevent to the section. (ATOE (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC))[]

I phrased my edit summary wrong, but their only connection to Dune is that they named themselves after a term from the novel, that is not influence. They are not notable within the context of that article, and wouldn't be (in my opinion) in the Sandworm article either. Bring it up on the talk page if you feel that strongly about it, but the mention of the band has been deleted a few times in the past. — TAnthonyTalk 20:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[]

No, that's fine by me, you have more experience with what will and won't be acceptable around WP. I was just questioning your edit summary. (ATOE (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC))[]

OLTL question

Hey TAnthony... I have a question about the content on List of One Life to Live cast members...

Every Friday ABC airs a complete cast list at the end of the episode, and both Andrea Evans and Brian Kerwin are signed under the contract cast members. Why are those actors both under recurring? I won't change anything because those changes are always reverted by someone. Kerwin has been on contract for a long time, but someone always claims they have a source saying he's recurring. Also, I'm pretty sure Andrea signed a contract, even though only for two months.

Also, during the last two months, Melissa Fumero was recurring (because her contract ended before her character departed to Paris), but she was signed as under contract. Does that mean that the credits ABC airs every Friday aren't accurate or?

Please, let me know what you think. Dmarex (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[]

It's funny, I did a screen cap of the Andrea Evans credit on Friday in case I needed it for my request to move the Tina article, and I did notice the weird way the credits are mixed up. I'm going to take a look again and see what the deal is exactly, but I seem to recall other people "mixed in" as well. However, it doesn't say "Contract" or "recurring" in the credits so despite the obvious "ordering," we can't take that to mean anything (I don't even think they're necessarily alphabetical either). As far as I know, Kerwin was specifically not on contract, I've been saving OLTL-related pages from some Soap Opera Digest mags so I'll look thru that. Evans never had a contract on Passions for 8 years at her request (she didn't want to be locked in), and I somehow doubt that she would sign one for OLTL unless absolutely necessary, since she lives in LA. In any case, none of the articles about Evans' return specify she's on contract, and the SOD ones usually do if that is the case. — TAnthonyTalk 15:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[]
Okay, thanks. Dmarex (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[]

Article idea

Hi TAnthony... I have one more question and I don't know anyone else to ask about this certain idea.

Since I've joined Wikipedia, I've created numerous articles for real-life producers, directors and writers of soap operas, but neither of those articles have quality. To avoid having a million stubs on Wikipedia, would it be a good idea to created one article titled Soap opera writers or Soap opera directors and include a huge list those people, including their credits?

Soaps like Days of our Lives have articles like Children of Salem where they include all of their children, instead of creating a low-quality article for each of the. What do you think, would it be a good idea to develop an article like that? On my userpage, you'll see the title "Created writers, producers, directors articles," a complete list of all articles I created. Wouldn't it be better if they would all be in once place? And sorry if I'm bothering you my questions. Dmarex (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[]

That's a great idea, I think a list would be preferred to a series of stubs. However, even a list need not contain every person who ever wrote a soap script and all of their credits. This would really amount to trivia. There needs to be some notability involved. — TAnthonyTalk 23:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[]
This is only an idea. If it were to happen, I would probably leave all bigger articles alone, but only add those writers/directors who had a short run or weren't that notable. Because it really isn't worth creating small stubs for each of those. But maybe I shouldn't do this anyway. If I had a page full of writers (let's say, for example, around 20 writers) that weren't notable, somebody would probably eventually try to delete it. Dmarex (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[]

Cassadine family

What would you think about me making some articles for other major families on General Hospital like the Cassadine family article? It would be a good way to deal some minor Quartermaines, Webbers, and Hardys. AniMate 20:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[]

That's a great idea, there are so many stubs that are just a name, performer and list of fictional relatives. — TAnthonyTalk 23:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[]
I thought so too. Right now I've redirected the majority of the stubs to the list of GH characters, and will probably start working on them in my sandbox. Just as a favor, could you keep an eye out for Santos25Q. He's not blocked (for some reason), and is back to some of his old tricks. He undid some redirects as an IP and claimed that someone else used his WiFi and blah blah blah. AniMate 23:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[]

Template:Infobox soap character

Could you adjust the template so the image size can be modified? Images smaller than 210px are distorted. --Silvestris (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]

Thanks for responding.
Is there anyway to make the image smaller without getting a little |210px]] next to the image?--Silvestris (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]
Well, if you use the old "image" parameter you can change that # to whatever you want to resize the image, like |150px]] . Does that answer your question? Not sure I'm understanding exactly, which article are you talking about? By the way, when using the image1/image2 parameters, the |210px or whatever is useless. — TAnthonyTalk 17:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]
Never mind, I got it.
I was doing "| image = File:PHOTO.jpg" like you said, but I still had it at image1.
Thanks for the help. --Silvestris (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[]

Bay State (tv series)

Sorry I must've deleted part of the imdb link by accident. Thanks for catching that. As to the runtime, Bay State episodes are all 30 min episodes, not 60. Justinkrivers (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[]

To Tame a Land

Hi there, any reason you saw fit to remove the reference to this song from the Dune Universe page? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thtuskey (talkcontribs) 20:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[]

The song can hardly be considered part of the universe or canon, it is noted in the article for the novel Dune. — TAnthonyTalk 21:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[]

I think that's a rather fuzzy interpretation of what's "in" the universe (it is based more in the Dune universe than "Doon" was (hardly part of the universe or canon)), but given that I now see that it IS handled in the general Dune article, I concede. Thanks for giving the matter thoughtful attention. Thtuskey (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[]

Hey there, thanks for your response ... I really don't mean to be a dick about this either! To be honest, I don't like Doon being there either, but it has been there for a long time and "To Tame a Land" has been cut from here and other places repeatedly. — TAnthonyTalk 03:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[]


Here and here.

Please take a break and return to editing with a calm demeanor and open mind. I am close to reporting both of you for edit-warring/violating 3RR for your actions at List of One Life to Live cast members and Vincent Jones. — TAnthonyTalk 23:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[]

AWB task

Can you be a little more specific about how to pull up redirects/deleted articles still tagged with Project banners? I tried to follow your description here but ... — TAnthonyTalk 23:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[]

How's this? Nifboy (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Ah, thank you! It was step 7 where I had the problem, I didn't realize the Logs function existed ;) — TAnthonyTalk 02:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Yea, there's a few odd, lurking features of AWB. Nifboy (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Hmm, instead of skipping the redirects and loging them as such, AWB seems to be following the redirect and logging the destination. For example, for Frank Barlow (Coronation Street) it logged List of past Coronation Street characters (1970-1979)#Frank Barlow as "no change" and didn't log the redirected article at all. I believe I have everything checked as you say, #REDIRECT entered in "Contains" etc. — TAnthonyTalk 05:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Aha, OK, the instruction about making sure "Bypass redirects is off" was missing from your sandbox instructions. Thanks! — TAnthonyTalk 06:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Dr. Ben Davidson

User talk:KingMorpheus

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), qualifiers like "Dr." are not used in article names. Plus, it is standard practice in fictional articles to denote series, film or book/comic for any necessary disambiguation. — TAnthonyTalk 00:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[]

You were right about the Passions ending

I'm absolutely loving it! You guys did a top notch job. I think I'm going to cry after I see the last eppy though... there are rumors of USA starting it again though (fingers crossed). -- Dougie WII (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[]

LOL thanks, obviously I didn't write it but we did work really hard. Didja see me in that last shot??!! ;) — TAnthonyTalk 21:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[]
I'm not sure, I looked several times... about where are you in the crowd? -- Dougie WII (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Date span template

I'll have a look at see what i can do Gnevin (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Hi is User:Gnevin/sandbox9 what you mean? Gnevin (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Yes! You are a genius ;) — TAnthonyTalk 19:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Thanks,I'll put it in the template name space when I finish my current AWB run Gnevin (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[]
Here it is {{+++|1={{+++|1={{#expr:1980 - 1970}}|2={{#expr:1990 - 1985}}}}|2={{#expr:1997 - 1995}}}} which of course gives 17
Hey man, thanks! I really appreciate the effort made to help a stranger ;) — TAnthonyTalk 22:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[]


Have you ever considered becoming an admin? You have a really even temper, a boatload of edits, and frankly WikiProject Soap Operas could use an active admin involved in some of our issues (especially since Elonka's kind of busy dealing with all sorts of BS). If you're interested, let me know. I'd be happy to nominate you. AniMate 04:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[]

I agree. -- Dougie WII (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[]

Hunters of Dune and Sandworms of Dune

Comment from User talk:Ceha

Hi, your extensive comments at Talk:Hunters of Dune and Talk:Sandworms of Dune (here and here) are really not appropriate for talk pages, which are intended for discussion of the content of articles in the context of editing them, not for editor analysis and reviews. That kind of material is better suited for a fan forum or your personal blog or website. Thanks. — TAnthonyTalk 02:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[]

Response on my talk page:
Hi, I agree that my comments are little bit excesive and too much in the form of critics than to commentaries on the edit pages but shouldn't in the articles be something about:
  • Differences to the style which used Frank Herbert
  • Inconsistencies in the cannon
Of course in more encyclopedian form.
--Čeha (razgovor) 03:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[]
Perhaps, but only if this has been discussed elsewhere; Wikipedia is not the place for original thought and analysis. If there is such an analysis out there from a reliable source, it can certainly be incorporated, with references. As far as the canon issue goes, believe me, that issue has come up and been debated in nearly every Dune article. In most cases the articles currently contain about as much attention to that as possible within our guidelines. We can only point out inconsistencies in a roundabout way without analyzing them or making assumptions. — TAnthonyTalk 03:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[]

Lists of actors....

Please see my comments at the AFD. Perhaps all these 'lists' could be combined into one larger AfD so that the pros and cons of such lists can be discussed in toto. I noticed the 1st AD was a no-consensus. By including them all together it may be easier to show the problems inherent in maintenance. I agree that such lists are simply lists for the sake of having a list... and unless one sets careful parameters for who to include and how and why, the list could end up having hundreds of sub-lists and include literally millions of names. Maintaining such would be impossible. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[]

Senior Cast members

How many years is a cast member considered a senior cast member? P.J. 01:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that there is a specific number, but certainly you have to look at someone like Erika Slezak, who has 37 years, and work down from there. Of course, it would vary from series to series. — TAnthonyTalk 14:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[]

Ray Montez

How long does Ray Montez have to stay in the One Life to Live minor characters. Can some of them have their own articles like Britney Jennings, Noelle Ortiz, Brody Lovett, Lee Ramsey, and Moe Stubbs? P.J. (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[]

There is not much more to say about any of them, why do they need their own articles? Anyway, what you don't yet understand is that articles on fictional characters need to consist of more than just plot summary, or they are likely to be deleted. Most of the soap opera articles are in danger of this, because they have few references and no real-world impact. Many have been deleted over time. The whole reason we created the One Life to Live minor characters was to save these articles from deletion (most of the ones you mentioned were once small or styub articles). A perfect example of how such an article should really be is Pauline Fowler. Most soap characters aren't this notable, so we're lucky that most articles haven't been noticed and deleted. There has been much discussion on this at the Soap Operas WikiProject. We really need to focus on improving articles, rather than obsessing about plot details and such. — TAnthonyTalk 03:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[]

AfD comments

Lists nominated by TAnthony

Image guidance

Left for User:OriginalCyn3000 here:

I can tell by all the image warnings on this page that you don't yet understand fair use rules and don't seem to want to, but ... FYI, if you do not own an image, you cannot use it to show what a living person looks like here. You did not take Image:Aracely Arámbula 6.jpg with your own camera, so you don't own it. — TAnthonyTalk 14:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[]

For your reference, the policy which prohibits this kind of image use is Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use, Images - Item 12. Please familiarize yourself with fair use rules before you upload any more images; you have uploaded dozens of inappropriate images.
In addition, you have uploaded album and DVD covers, which are acceptable in album and telenovela articles, but which will be deleted unless you provide the proper fair use rationale templates when you upload the images or soon after.
  • Video and DVD covers: Take a look at how I have updated Image:Thalia Rosa.jpg, and feel free to copy the material there for new TV series or film images, of course changing the linked name of the series or film where it appears. It is also helpful to include a link to the website from which you took the image under "Source," and if you can't recall, specify that you are the uploader (as I've done with the images I've fixed for you).
  • Albums: Take a look at Image:ForbiddenBroadway-RudeAwakening.jpg; you can copy this material, updating the article name and image source info.
Thanks — TAnthonyTalk 16:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Copyright violation at Carlo Hesser

Left at User talk:Nuada79

FYI, your creating the Carlo Hesser article here using text copied verbatim from his SoapCentral profile is a blatant copyright violation. External sources may be used for information, but not sentences. I am in the process of rewriting it in its entirety and referencing SoapCentral as the source of the data. In the future, please do not copy text from other websites and use it in any Wikipedia pages. I realize that this was probably an honest mistake, so please let me know if you have done this with any other articles and I can help you fix them without getting you in any trouble. Thanks. — TAnthonyTalk 20:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[]


It was not a personal attack. It was merely a suggestion. Phenomenon8980 (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[]

I understand that you did not intend your comments as a literal "attack," but understand that the tone in which you say something is almost more important than what you say here. Your suggestions will never be heeded if other editors feel that you are insulting them, and you lose credibility if you appear to be condescending or insulting. Believe me, I've learned that lesson myself the hard way! — TAnthonyTalk 19:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[]

So I am not allowed to erase people's harrasing messages from my own talk page?

So I'm not allowed to erase people's harrasing messages of off my own talk page? Phenomenon8980 (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[]

The pages I cited were not your talk page. And warnings of inappropriate behavior on your talk page are not harrassment. — TAnthonyTalk

I dont believe any of my behavior was inappropriate to warrant any warnings. This is clear harrasment. Im getting harrased by nitpicky editors and I just want them to leave me alone. Phenomenon8980 (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[]

I'm sorry if you were offended by my suggesting that this comment was slightly harsh, but it is every editor's responsibility to help other editors. However, if you are saying that this edit and this edit are not "inappropriate to warrant any warnings," then you are incorrect. Removing other editors' comments from an article talk page without even an explanation is in poor form, especially when these comments seem to go against your own position in a discussion. I'm sorry if you feel that you are being harassed, but you do not seem to be — you just seem to continue to engage in behavior that attracts attention. — TAnthonyTalk 21:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[]

I must apologize for any part I had in this....I feel responsible for setting this entire debate in motion. I was just trying to explain the rules. It wasn't personal to the creator. The Melanie Layton article simply didn't meet WP:NOTE. I was just trying to help. Please let me know if I can help you with any resulting problems you're experiencing with this debate. Rm994 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Don't worry about it at all; you may have initiated the "discussion" of the article but you are certainly in no way responsible for the path it took or the actions of any editors involved. I must admit that my own persistence enflamed the situation more than anything. And when even Elonka's ever-calm and ever-encouraging comments like this one are dismissed, you know it's a losing battle. — TAnthonyTalk 21:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Wow. That's so discouraging. Along with the name calling. She reached out, and was shot down. It's sad, because it seemed like Phenom had the makings of a great editor. As a matter of fact, when I first redirected the article, he mentioned something about Liberty Ciccone being deleted from As the World Turns. I'm unfamiliar with the show, but told him to go ahead make the change if he felt it was needed. Then, I get my talk/user page blanked, and the "leave me alone" messages. I've tried to stay out of it since then, because it was handled, but I have read the insults, and problems, and I just wanted you to know that your work here IS appreciated, and I stand behind you and Elonka. Thanks :) Rm994 (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[]

House Ordos

From the "House Ordos" article: "...Despite the superficial appearance of being a pristine place of exquisite crystalline beauty, ultimately just a world where life neither could nor would want to grow — a looking glass into nothing."

How poetic. I think it was you who pointed at the similarity between character of the House and that of the Planet; in the 6th of December, 2006. Are these your own words? (And, NO, I am not one of those bastards who try to edit every 'unreferenced' word out of the encyclopedia, presumably because of their envy and hatred of every human being that can actually compose his/her own sentences. I am just curious.) Alperkaan (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Hmmm, actually the 2006 edit to which you're referring was basically just a cleanup ... it looks like that crazy section was readded here and I just took it back out. It's total POV and I don't see any encyclopedic value. I'd love to work on the article more, but I've never played the game, so I'm not clued-in on the accuracy of the content. — TAnthonyTalk 13:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Article cleanup

Hi there! Glad the Ordos edits were ok: the article was a mess of POV, OR and written from an in-universe perspective and I picked it up on my way through some Dune-related articles. I do that periodically (the edits to Anirul from a while back as an example!). Then I though I'd post a message here to say what I've said just now and see it's already come up! (Saves me creating a new section on your talk :D). ColdmachineTalk 07:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Yes, that article always irked me, but beyond a technical cleanup I wasn't comfortable editing it too much because (as I noted above) I'm not familiar enough with the content to know what's notable, etc. So again, thanks for the good work! — TAnthonyTalk 15:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Suspected sock puppet reporting

Hi. Please feel free to add to an open case. This is better than starting multiple open cases about the same puppetmaster. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 04:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[]

LOL, the second time I used the auto-tool I was wondering if should've just added it manually ... thanks for the cleanup. — TAnthonyTalk 04:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[]


From User talk:Elonka

OK, I'm assuming you've read most of today's (and recent) comments on Phenom's page, the Current Days characters page, and my sockpuppet reports. I know I tend to go from friendly and helpful to businesslike and cold quicker than is probably preferred, and I was certainly relentless in this situation, but at some point I'd be interested if you thought I should've handled this differently. Feel free to not hold back any punches ;) — TAnthonyTalk 22:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Actually, no, I thought you handled yourself with remarkable restraint, especially considering the quantity of abuse that was being hurled your way! So good job on that.  :) I think we all went the extra mile to try and assume good faith and smooth out any misunderstandings with that editor, but sometimes there's just nothing that can be done. Looking back in hindsight on the entire situation, the main big thing that probably could have been done differently, is that as soon as there was a challenge to the redirect, we could have gone straight to the AfD(s). Other than that, I think everyone did as well as could probably be expected with that kind of situation. --Elonka 13:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[]
By the way, thanks for this comment; the attacks themselves don't faze me, I'm honestly more concerned about the general disruption and endless potential for unchecked IP sock vandalism here. I'm hoping he just loses interest. — TAnthonyTalk 19:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Your have been awarded the Rescue Barnstar!

  The Article Rescue Barnstar
For your outstanding effort in rescuing dozens of Dune articles from a drab, imageless fate, you have been awarded the Article Rescue Barnstar. Kudos to you, sir! Kralizec! (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[]
Aww shucks, thanks ;) — TAnthonyTalk 21:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[]

Talia Sahid

This is really starting to make me cringe. Any idea how much longer it's going to be before we get a new picture? I'm certainly not trying to rush you, but I'd almost rather not have a picture up than one that is so unflattering. As the king of bad photos, I'm probably just being sensitive, but that picture doesn't seem fair to the character or the actress. AniMate 04:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Just our luck, she hasn't been on since the issue came up! — TAnthonyTalk 05:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[]
Aha. No worries. If I actually bothered to check my Tivo I'd probably know that... and what's happening on all my favorite shows that have started there new seasons. Thanks for keeping an eye on things anyway. AniMate 05:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[]
She's on today, but so far she's in her pajamas LOL — TAnthonyTalk 20:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[]
OK, this was the best shot from yesterday's show, it's not the best photo ever but at least it's crisp and her eyes are open ;) — TAnthonyTalk 21:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Dool characters

(swimming away) So, I'm thinking that it's time to proceed with the merge, since no one's objecting. I've left comments on the talkpage there, let me know what you think? --Elonka 19:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Reilly's death

A large percentage of the deaths listed are initially not put in the right place, and are corrected. If the date of death is not mentioned, they are left until further information can be found. If it was run any differently, Deaths in 2008 would not be able to function in the most beneficient manner. Star Garnet (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Carlo Hesser Bio

With all due respect, Soap Central is not the only place that features that exact bio. Several other sites, including one I listed as a reference, had that exact same bio. As SC is partially edited by volunteers, so no one has any real way of knowing where the text in question originally came from.

I did try to rework as many sentences as possible, in order to make it read less like a pure copying job, unlike other sites. I also added updated information that was not present on the SC page as of July of this year.

In addition, I also added some good info that is not found anywhere, info that came from old recordings that I still have on VHS tape and from old Soap Opera Digest magazines. Of course, you saw fit to edit most of that info out.

This is the only article I created in such a way. That is because it is the only article that I created basically from scratch. Also, the trick here was that it required such a lengthy collection of information, in order to do it justice anyway. But I am learning as I’m editing, the best way to learn is learn by doing.

Still the phrasing “blatant copyright violation” might be a bit off the mark. After all, I was the one that added the Soap Central link in the references section in the first place. It was not like I was trying to hide anything. Perhaps I should have reworked it further. (It is far easier to rework it than to compose it from scratch, is it not?) But it’s not like you get college credit for this. I’m just a big fan of the character. Perhaps this all is more work than it is worth.

Never been accused of plagiarism before and I’ve written a lot of essay papers. No hard feelings though, I’ve known bigger tragedies in my life. Nuada79 (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Hey there, thanks for your comment, and thanks for your edits in general. Please understand that I never doubted your good faith intentions and didn't mean for my copyright warning on your page as to seem harsh, so I'm sorry if you felt put off by it. I simply saw multiple phrases identical to the source, and though I noticed some rewrites and additions, they seemed minimal and I suppose I assumed they were from subsequent edits. We've seen a lot of new users cut-and-paste info here from other places here, not realizing it's a problem, so again I'm sorry that I didn't notice the care you took adding information.
In my own copyedit I just attempted to rewrite as much as possible and trim whatever detail I could. At this point the article is primarily plot summary, and though this is a long-running character, character articles are supposed to have "minimal" plot details. It (like many, many soap articles) needs some information from external sources asserting the character's notability and adding real-world context. I would love for you to work on this article to improve it; take a look at Pauline Fowler, Nikki and Paulo and similar Featured Articles for examples of how an article should eventually be. And as far as info you added from your research that I may have inadvertently edited out, by all means reintroduce anything you feel is appropriate. Just keep in mind that we don't need to discuss every single plot point or factoid, it's really supposed to be an overview more than a point-by-point plot summary. I know there are editors out there who are not as big fans of OLTL as you and I are, and would slash the article even further with content guidelines to back them up.
Thanks again, and hope to see you more around here. — TAnthonyTalk 17:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[]


I loved Michael, and his death was oddly shocking even though everyone knew it was coming. Witchblade was one of the most well drawn books out there. I'm not particularly surprised about PJ either. His attitude is so ill suited for Wikipedia, and I gently tried to get him to see that. I think he's someone who would really benefit from having their own website where he could control the content. Perhaps a OLTL wikia page? I always hate seeing someone blocked, but... As for my gender, I thought about making a vaguely crude joke about peeing and sitting or standing but the cold, wet, cesspool that Los Angeles has become has sucked any joviality I had out of me, despite tomorrow being my last day of work for the year. I'm actually am a guy, and found Flyer22 repeatedly explaining it to users. Perhaps we should switch names to end any gender confusion. I'm always happy to clear up the confusion, because using the awful "he/she" can be so annoying. --AniMate 06:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[]

LOL, I am also in LA and am now wondering if you're just talking about the weather or the realization we all seem to have about the nature of the place after living here too long! It's funny, I think I may have thought you were a woman when I first started seeing you pop up, not sure why, but then of late I had you in my head as a man. Not that it matters, it's just interesting how we sort of assign phantom faces and imagery to people here based on unconscious connotations with usernames or reading between the lines.— TAnthonyTalk 07:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[]
I was mostly talking about the weather, since I've been so jaded about life in LA for so long that I'm back to loving it. Today doesn't feel that bad, though i think that's mostly because I'm just finishing up alot of little nothings at the office in preparation for a night of hard drinking followed by an extended vacation. For the first time in years I'm thrilled about going home... since I decided to rent a hotel room. My parents were offended at first, but are okay now that they've realized they get me for three weeks and won't bump into me before my morning coffee. I read your exchange with PJ's IP. I'm not particularly surprised by the Asperger Syndrome, as I honestly expected something like that was at the root of his interactions with others. Still, you have the patience of a saint, as I would have likely bailed after the first insult or threat. When I login tomorrow, I'll likely be in another time zone, and then... the big RfA. Wish me luck. AniMate 21:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[]
Believe me, at times it's all I can do not to hurl insults myself! But I do really want to get through to editors like that, if only because they never really go away and the best you can hope for is that they learn how to better interact. Still, as you could tell it's like talking to a brick wall in this case, I'm not quite sure why I keep going except perhaps my own twisted need to "win the debate," LOL.
Where's home? I'm going to Jersey myself; I have so often been tempted by the hotel idea, but by now I've got them pretty well trained to make it bearable hahaha. I've been out a lot lately so I'm saving my hard drinking 'til I get there! Is your current-job comic-related? I'm a TV production mgr, just finished something a few wks ago so I've got a no-pressure holiday ahead of me.
Good luck indeed with the RfA, I'll definitely weigh in. I really really hate how those things play out, but I guess it's a necessary evil to make sure that only quality people succeed. Let me know if there's anybody I can sleep with to get you in, LOL. — TAnthonyTalk 23:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[]
I haven't worked in comics for a while now, as I moved into animation and graphics with some minor consulting on comics based movies. The writers strike, which I'm sure affected you adversely as well, served as catalyst for me to move into teaching practical arts classes at university level. though my parents smug and self congratulatory looks whenever they remind me they insisted I get an education minor in case art didn't work out makes me regret the move somewhat. Home is Arkansas, a huge change from LA, and a great starting point for the "mini trips" I'm planning to make to New Orleans and Memphis. Be glad you didn't fly out yesterday. Worst turbulence on a flight ever to Vegas, where I was delayed almost an hour because of snow... in Las Vegas. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one. You can save your I'm sure unblemished purity in regards to my RfA as I really won't be upset if it doesn't pass, though I may call on you to relinquish it in the future if I need to broker some kind of deal around here. I just pray it doesn't turn into one of those RfAs where everyone tries to argue down the people with legitimate oppose !votes. --AniMate 18:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[]


For your information Passions is very related to NBC even after it moved DirecTV's The 101 because NBC continued to have owned and produce the show. Saying that DirecTV's The 101 didn't pick Passions from NBC is not an incorrect statement.

You do not seem to understand that Passions was still continued to be completely operated and owned by another Television Network which was NBC and in reality, DirecTV was only continuing to air the series for NBC. Why don't you look at this link and find out for yourself.

In most cases, when a show moves from one network to another, usually the previous network will completely have no more relationship them and it all relationships stay exclusively on the other network. However with NBC and Passions, NBC continued to maintain their relationship with Passions with complete ownership, production, products and etc. of the show. The only thing was that NBC was not airing Passions like the first 8 years of the show and instead NBC distributed all of the new episodes to DirecTV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canto2009 (talkcontribs) 23:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[]

Excuse me, are you lecturing me on something as obvious as NBC owning the series? Twice uou added "DirecTV announced that it would not pick up Passions for a tenth season for NBC," which makes no sense ... did you mean "from NBC?" Regardless, there are at least two places in previous sentences that note it is NBC's show, your insistence on adding "NBC" or "DirecTV" to every other sentence in various related articles is inappropriate and maddening.— TAnthonyTalk 23:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[]

Victor Lord

Hi, me again. Once again, new to this. I added a talk section for changing 'Dorian Cramer Lord' to 'Dorian Lord'. Additionally, I have a question, and b/ I know that you're into OLTL, I'm sure you'll know: Why is there no article for Victor Lord? He's not a minor character. I was wondering, since you worked on 'Lord Family' you'd maybe know. Thanks... Bmf777 (talk) 07:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]

Hey there! Yes, we at WP:SOAPS have consolidated may smaller articles on minor characters into larger articles of one kind or another to save them from deletion. Wikipedia has strict guidelines regarding articles on fictional topics; basically, fictional character articles cannot consist of just exhaustive plot summary, they need some kind of real-word notability to really be able to withstand an AFD. This would mean mention on a reputable website or in a book or magazine, etc. Many soap articles have been tagged for deletion over time, and there are many more which are currently in bad shape and in danger of being noticed and deleted. There is a bad habit among casual editors to create a separate article for every single character that has ever been on a series; this actually goes against policy. Strictly speaking, only the most notable characters should have articles, like Erica Kane and Luke and Laura (think about what soap characters would actually make it into a printed encyclopedia). We obviously have articles for many characters per show, usually all contract players and such, but they are in constant danger of deletion if not shored up with references asserting notability. The general membership of Wikipedia doesn't necessarily share our belief in the notability of these characters, and policy backs them up at this point. The Featured Article Pauline Fowler is the ultimate example of what a soap character article should be; articles like Bianca Montgomery or Todd Manning are less extensive examples of well-sourced articles. Even articles like Tina Lord and Jessica Buchanan have sourced sections regarding their impact and popularity, which are essential to all articles. I recently added information regarding awards and nominations to Jill Foster Abbott and Carly Corinthos for the same reason (the Jill article was threatened with deletion because it was just a lot of plot).
Victor Lord had a short article, as did Meredith and Tony, and others ... the combined Lord family article is easier to defend because the family has been a notable one in the series, more so than the individual long-dead characters themselves. And good luck finding external sources discussing these characters! So we've tried to make sure all notable characters have some material dedicated to them somewhere, but not necessarily their own articles. I have personally consolidated as many OLTL articles as possible in this manner, and continue to maintain them as a whole. I haven't gotten around to adding references to all the articles as yet; I mean, technically, an article like Charlie Banks would fail an AfD nom in its current form. You've probably seen many other shows with tons of tiny individual character articles; Days of our Lives, for example, has many stubs for characters from decades ago that will eventually be deleted, or forcefully redirected or merged. You may want to check out Category:One Life to Live characters; the names in italics are redirected to other articles, but most have dedicated material. For example, Viki obviously has her own article, but Hank Gannon (and many characters) redirect to the appropriate family section in One Life to Live minor families. Cassie Callison has her own section in the Cramer family article, and I've just merged Mel Hayes into One Life to Live minor characters.
I'm glad you have an interest in OLTL, we need all the help we can get! I urge you to look at existing articles and see how they may be improved, in particular by adding references and other material asserting real-world notability. And let me know if I can help you in any way. Thanks! — TAnthonyTalk 18:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[]
That's good to know, thank you! I will look around these articles. I find them very helpful and educational. Bmf777 (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]


Not sure if you're aware of this yet, but with's recent changes, references leading to their daily recaps are now defunct. I'm not sure if I should remove these, or replace them with other daily recap sources, such as Any suggestions? Thanks! --OLTL2002 (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]

Yes, I did notice, and it alarmed me! I liked the ABC sources because they seemed the most "official." Some are still available thru the Internet Archive ( ... you enter the original link in the "Wayback Machine" box and it will list archived versions by date; I choose the latest one that works and replace the link in the article with that (I also usually note the fact that it is from the archive somewhere within the citation). So for example, this link from the Tina Lord article is dead, but there's an archived version here (I replaced it here, with the archive date). For any more recent links that may not have been archived, I like recaps better than; SoapCentral seems to have more user contributors. But use your own judgment, the plot references are unlikely to be challenged with either of these sites.— TAnthonyTalk 03:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the help! --OLTL2002 (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[]

One Life to Live minor characters

Hi! Recently, you reverted my removal of the per character images on this article. I know you've been in discussions on this issue before. The issue is more strictly codified now at Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles. I invite you to read that. In general, the concept of using per character images is not supported such as was the intended use on One Life to Live minor characters. It is far preferable to use a cast photo or something similar (but not a montage created by you) to show some of the characters. In some character list articles, it might be useful to depict certain key characters, most especially if they have something unusual about their appearance that is discussed in the article. That is not the case here. All of these characters are, by definition, minor and do not warrant images. If a sub article is broken out for a particular character, then please feel free to add an image of the character to that article. But on this list, it's not supported. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[]

Thanks, I was obviously aware that most lists had been stripped in this way, but unaware that a "policy" had been set down. And so we're clear, I don't care that much about these specific images, and I remove images all the time for NFC-related "violations." It just seems like an interpretive grey area, considering that one could argue that, let's face it, a lot of images technically fail the requirement "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Like, the pic at Featured Article Khan Noonien Singh is great but obviously this article needs no image to "understand" that character, etc. That goes double for book covers! And I can find external sources to assert the notability of many fictional characters who I feel don't really need their own articles even though technically they have enough notability. the problem with soap fans is that they love to create individual articles for every single character, and they love for everyone to have an image ... I feel like this is encouraging a series of small articles which could actually withstand an AFD, and I just hate clutter ;) — TAnthonyTalk 20:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[]
  • If they can survive an AfD, then they can survive. AfD isn't run by soap opera watchers :) --Hammersoft (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[]

Dune notes/"Alllegedly"

If it has to stay, the page could at least say that the sequels are "allegedly" based on notes left by Frank Herbert, rather than just accepting the truth of that dubious proposition. Mangajunglist (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[]

For the record, I don't find the new books necessarily worthy of being placed alongside Frank Herbert's own, and feel that he may not have made some of the same plot choices etc, but the truth is that we have sources statements asserting that there were notes, and nothing at all to suggest that there were not. Any wording to suggest that the notes do not exist is unsourced editor POV. All they're saying is that they used a 2-page outline by Frank, not that he wrote the book himself or spelled out all of the details.— TAnthonyTalk 07:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[]
I take your point, but think that it's misconceived. There are doubtless sources asserting the existence of the invisible flying tea cup, the faerie king Oberon and Robocop on a unicorn, but I've yet to hear anyone suggest that any of these should be uncritically accepted as historical fact. The fundamental difficulty with your position is that the sole (ultimate) source of the information is the otherwise unvouched ipse dixit of two people with an obvious financial interest in promoting one version of events. The individuals have had every possible opportunity to substantiate their claims by releasing or publishing copies of the notes, but have failed to do so. Without wishing to get into the merits of the books in question, I think it's fair to say that the claims that BH and KJA made about the notes were crying out for corroboration. In the absence thereof, it's difficult to see how anyone can lend much credence to them. In such a situation, it would hardly be NPOV to refuse to acknowledge the considerable degree of controversy surrounding the provenance/existence of the notes. Mangajunglist (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[]
To be fair, they've published images of the floppies containing the notes with labels in Frank's handwriting, and I haven't heard of any handwriting experts coming forward to challenge that. And I think we both know that even if any notes were published, plenty of dissenters would say the boys wrote them, as they are not handwritten by Frank. And I can easily see accusations of forgery after that! The books weren't written by Frank, these "fans" hate that they dared continue the series in any way, and nothing will ever satisfy them or change their minds. Oh, and your "Oberon/unicorn" comparison is a classic straw man argument I will disregard.
I put myself in the position of BH/KJA, and the mere suggestion that they are lying is basically insulting and inflammatory when there is no evidence except that some fans hate the books. You can say all you want about how they have motive to lie, but there is nothing concrete to contradict them, and writing any of these articles to suggest they are making false claims is basically slander, and I'm sure could be argued to violate WP:BLP. It speaks volumes that no one has yet produced a reliable published source which challenges the existence of the notes, or even reported on a fan/reader challenge significant enough to be noticed in the mainstream. You say there is a "considerable degree of controversy" but there is no real way to quantify if it actually amounts to more than the most hardcore fans posting in a forum. And I will repeat, they are not saying he wrote the books. If you read a 2-page outline of any book, the completed novel is obviously going to have a lot more to it. Am I the only one who can see that two writers could start with the same outline and come up with two considerably different novels? What is it, specifically, that has convinced you that Frank could not have conceived the basic plot of Dune 7? There were certainly choices made that didn't feel to me like natural extensions of the plotlines Frank set in motion, but they were going off two and a half pages. Give me a break. — TAnthonyTalk 22:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[]
straw man? It's nothing of the sort. I'm certainly not trying to paint you as a follower of the invisible flying tea cup, or some kind of Pastafarian. If you took that from it, then my apologies. The reference to the tea cup is a jocular - but in my view apposite - allusion to Russell's problem with articles of faith. Let me put it another way. Barring a tearful confession and retraction, what is the hypothetical piece of concrete evidence that would persuade you that Wikipedia ought to acknowledge the fact that the existence of the notes in question is disputed? (nb I'm not for one second suggesting that Wikipedia ought to make the claim that the notes are falsified.) If I were to publish my own version of Dune VII using the notes that FH gave me, would you accept my claims at face value as well? If not, why?
You'll doubtless accuse me of straw man again, but are you trying to suggest that anything other than complete acceptance of any claim that BH may make would amount to defamation? If so, I think you're missing a subtlety. It's entirely possible to point to factors that impact negatively upon an assessment of a person's credibility without making the claim that he's lying. I don't know Brian Herbert. I make no aspersions whatsoever about his personal integrity. What I am saying is that the state of the evidence engenders healthy, rational scepticism about his claim, just as it would if anyone else with a book to plug made a similar claim. The formulation on the Hunters page ("The authors have stated...") is appropriate for an unvouched claim, as was "It is apparently based upon..." Both are preferable to the suggestion in my post of 8 May 2008, above. Mangajunglist (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[]
Reading my last comment I realize I came off a little snarky, and I don't want you to think I'm actually mad at you for bringing this up or anything, LOL. My basic point is just, by the simplest WP policy, every statement requires a source, and in particular anything putting across an idea that contradicts another or may advance an opinion. To my knowledge there is not a single review of any of the BH/KJA novels that has suggested that the notes may not exist, or even reported the fact that "many fans don't believe the notes exist." Is this because reviewers are afraid of being sued by the authors? Is this because the number of people disputing the notes is not notable? I really don't know. But I have seen nothing to convince me that any significant amount of people really challenge the existence of the notes compared to the amount of books that have been sold, and even if we could use forums and message boards as sources, I don't know that they would impress me from a demographic point of view. It's like asking people who love an exclusive clothing designer (and who post on his website) whether they prefer his regular line or the line he's going to design for WalMart. You know the answer you're going to get, and you'd probably get a different one if you opened the question up to a larger group of people. Even if a majority of members of a particular Dune website doubts the notes, is that percentage of readers in general enough to be notable? I don't know. But I'm curious what gives you and others the impression that a notable amount of people disbelieve, I mean, how many people do you know that have voiced this opinion? How many posts have you read? I personally think Grey's Anatomy is stupid, I have friends who agree, and could probably find a bunch more online. I won't fool myself into thinking I'm part of an anti-Grey's movement worth noting somewhere. Or I can say that the last few Sue Grafton novels have sucked, and I'm convinced she must have gotten lazy and hired some college student to write them for her; if I get a large enough group of her disappointed fans to agree with me, can I write: "T" Is for Trespass is a 2007 novel which Sue Grafton states she wrote? And you know what, if you had a plausible explanation for how you came upon Frank's outline, like you were his editor or his assistant, how could we challenge it? People could still say your book sucks and you've executed Frank's ideas poorly, rather than say you made them up. I'd defend your position dude, I swear! Hahaha
LOL, you got me going again! Anyway, we'll never agree and as much as I hate to admit it, mine is not the only opinion that matters ;) So I can concede to "the authors state," which is less suggestive than "the authors claim," and wait until the next person comes along to change it. Thanks for the fun debate! — TAnthonyTalk 04:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[]

Trivia in Dune

From User talk:Sean1019

Hey there, you have restored the MST3000 trivia to the Dune (film) article three times, which is a violation of WP:3RR because while I have explained my removals in the edit summaries, you have chosen not to discuss the issue or even defend your edits.

Per WP:TRIVIA and Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles, unsourced factoids noting every time a particular topic is mentioned or parodied do not belong in articles. It is not notable to mention Dune in passing in another film, TV series or novel; if we did so, there would literally be list of a hundred items. Further, such mentions do not establish a topic's "influence" on society or culture; rather, a reliable, verifiable external source (book, article, etc) must be referenced which comments on such influence, or the notability of a given reference to the topic. Please do not add this information again, or you may risk a block. Thanks. — TAnthonyTalk 06:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[]


Passions website

Hi Tanthony

I am a new user of wikipedia. I have noticed you have contributed a lot to articles related to Passions(a show I loved until NBC took it off and DirecTV taking it away from viewers).

Since you seem to know a lot about Passions' situation, here is the question I want to ask. After NBC canceled Passions and moved only to DirecTV, why is it that NBC continued to broadcast the official website?

Usually when a show is canceled from one network and moves to another network in a present time like this with advanced technology, the previous network would no longer have any connection with the show and wouldn't even continue to host the website and another network would be the one that would host the official website.

With the case like Passions, it seems unusual. After moving Passions from NBC to DirecTV, it looked more as if NBC was still controlling everything of Passions and making it available on DirecTV than actually DirecTV buying the show. It seemed like there was no point of NBC continuing to host Passions' official website since they no longer owned the series and lost their rights to the show. Why couldn't DirecTV host the official website like all other networks?

When you have time please reply back. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantai101 (talkcontribs) 18:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[]

Hi, thanks for the question! Obviously you know that though the NBC network which airs the show and NBC Studios which produced the show are separate entities, they are "sister" business units owned by the same company. The website exists for promotional reasons anyway, and continuing to promote the series was in the best interest of all parties; in this case, promoting DirecTV programming would ultimately benefit the NBC Universal family of companies, since they were still making money by selling the series to DirecTV. And so you understand, when we say that NBC "sold" the show to DirecTV, we actually mean that they sold the rights to broadcast certain episodes a certain number of times, etc., not the actual ownership rights to the series. NBC Universal still owns every episode of Passions, even those that aired on DirecTV, and by continuing to host the site they are obviously cultivating that fanbase in the hopes of driving them to other NBC programming. Despite the show's cancellation, the franchise itself has certain value.— TAnthonyTalk 02:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[]

Hi Tanthony

Thanks for the reply. I now understand the situation, but even though if a show that is produced by another network, they wouldn't even think about hosting the website because they would be selling it on another outlet. Now NBC isn't the only network that produce shows. ABC and CBS also have production companies and sometimes some of those shows are on other outlets like the way NBC produce shows for other networks.

Like "Scrubs" for example. It is ABC-owned/produced, but it aired on NBC until ABC took full rights to the show. Now if ABC were to sell Scrubs on another broadcast outlet or cable outlet, ABC would no longer host the website and another network would host the website. And all of the soaps that are on ABC are produced by the same network and if they were to discontinue one or so of the soaps and sell it on another broadcast network or cable network, ABC would stop broadcasting the websites.

It seems like DirecTV cannot host official sites for their shows because when I come to think of it, if ABC were to sell their rights to the soaps to a subscriber service like DirecTV like the way NBC did with Passions, ABC would also continue to host the websites.

once again thanks for the reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantai101 (talkcontribs) 22:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[]

Uh, you lost me.— TAnthonyTalk 23:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[]

OK let me clarify better

What I am trying to say is that if another broadcast network or cable network picked up Passions, NBC wouldn't continue to air website, but it was picked up by a service and since DirecTV doesn't really host official websites for shows, that could be the reason why DirecTV didn't buy the official site from NBC. Now I don't have DirecTV, but I have friends who have them and I have seen the DirecTV shows and the official websites for these shows are always hosted by another company or something.

It seems like you work for these industries. I was so upset when DirecTV took Passions in because I didn't have that service to continue to watch it. If you do work in these industries, you probably aren't supposed to release certain info, but there was never a release of Passions' rating after it left NBC for a subscriber service. I bet that the ratings fell a lot after it moved from NBC to DirecTV because most fans didn't have that service. I was just wondering if you know about this, did the ratings dropped a lot when it came to DirecTV after leaving NBC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantai101 (talkcontribs) 17:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[]

You may be right that as a service provide more than a network, DirecTV doesn't host webpages for its shows (probably because it doesn't produce or own many or any). But I would actually guess that DirecTV just didn't want to spend the money on relaunching a full-on Passions website for their 156-episode Passions experiment. It seems likely that yes, had CBS or another network picked up Passions, they would cover the series on their site. If NBC dropped Passions content from their site, it would only be because their contract with the new network required that (which I'd imagine it would, so that CBS could benefit from fan traffic). But who knows. When it comes down to it, the sites are simply promotional tools with a certain value attached; don't be fooled into thinking the studios/networks are really concerned with continuity, content, or anything like that.
NBC cancelled Passions, and the move to DirecTV was simply a subsequent final attempt by the studio to keep it going. You are correct that ratings were never released for the DirecTV run; Neilsen sells its ratings information in different "packages" at varying price points, and DirecTV's contract allowed them to get ratings for their own use, but not use them for marketing or promotion (that is, publish them in press releases or make them public in any way; Nielsen charges more for the right to do that). Even producers of the series were not told what the ratings were or how many new subscribers DirecTV may have gotten because of the series, but DirecTV's failure to continue the series suggests that they weren't impressed with the numbers.— TAnthonyTalk 22:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[]

Soap plot

From User talk:Remilyfan

Hi, thanks for your recent contributions to various soap opera articles here. I'm especially appreciative of your including references to when adding plot information (as you have done in Rebecca Shaw), which is so important! However, I would ask you to check out WP:PLOT, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) to become more familiar with policies regarding fictional topics. Not only should articles consist of more than plot summary, but storyline info itself should be as brief and concise as possible. In the case of Rebecca Shaw, you seem to summarize the plot on an almost day-to-day basis, including relatively minor details. The plot sections of fictional character articles are intended to establish the notability of the characters and provide understanding, not relate every step of every plot in which they have been involved. For example, in your most recent edits you note that Rebecca sees Lucky on the docks and Lucky thinks Liz and Nikolas are talking about him; this is not noteworthy information. Try to think of it this way: if you were to read this article a year from now when these characters are involved in other storylines, what would still seem notable and relevant? So far her entire storyline can really be condensed to something like: "Rebecca comes to town and everyone is shocked at her resemblance to Emily; her growing closeness to both Nikolas and Lucky causes conflict between the brothers, made worse by rising suspicions that she is somehow part of Helena's latest plot to manipulate Nikolas." — TAnthonyTalk 01:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[]

Pretty Little Liars source

Sorry , but the link on the pretty little liars page Isn't a fansite . It's a source where people can read the latest news about PLL . You haven't read the series probably so you don't know anything about it ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]

It is a blog that is not managed by the author or publisher, or an accepted "expert," so IT IS A FANSITE. My knowledge of the series is irrelevant, but my knowledge of Wikipedia policy trumps yours.— TAnthonyTalk 19:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]

I'm sorry but i'm an accepted expert . The author herself liked my site very much ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Aha, now I get it, it's your own site. Well, I believe you may be an "expert" and appreciated by the author, but you have not been granted any notability or "power" as a critic, commentator, or newsgatherer by the publishing or online communities, so at this point your site cannot be considered a "reliable source." I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the fact is, since anyone can have a blog/site and write whatever they want, and only be as accurate as they choose to, Wikipedia has to have certain criteria to maintain accuracy and accountability. I am not suggesting that you make up information or do not note your sources, but unfortunately your site fails the criteria (at this point). I encourage you to discuss your situation at Wikipedia talk:External links and see if you are given any options there. I also encourage you to create a Wikipedia username, as anonymous IPs are unfortunately often taken less seriously in discussions. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Rebecca & Emily

I'm not operating from magazines or websites, TAnthony, but from the episode of General Hospital which aired today (Friday, June 5). Whether the articles are now reverted back or whether someone waits for a recap as official source material - irrelevant to me. But let the record show that the Rebecca-Emily twin revelation actually did air before I touched either article. ABCxyz (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Yes, but if sources are irrelevant to you, you should not be editing here. The fact that you saw something on TV is original research until you back it up. It's a bad habit to be adding things without a source, and frankly, adding a twin sister to an infobox is unimportant trivia. There are SO many soap opera articles that are just very long plot summaries with day-to-day minutae and no references. Guess what, an article with no sources cannot withstand an AfD. If you're going to spend the time adding info to an article, do it right or don't do it at all. It seems like small thing, but you're actually "damaging" the articles you are interested in.— TAnthonyTalk 02:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[]
I'm not trying to get into an argument with you, and if I violated protocol I stand corrected. However, you needn't be obnoxious. Please simply make your point without being nasty and without twisting my words, if you don't mind. Have a nice day. ABCxyz (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[]
OK, I'm sorry if I came off snarky, obviously I see you around a lot and don't want to be in any kind of argument at all. But this really is the biggest problem facing soap-related articles at this point. I'm actually surprised more haven't been nominated for deletion; they are in such bad shape in regard to policy violations and few people are interested in making actual improvements. Ethan Lovett actually just survived an AfD because we beefed it up, but we were lucky that character is so "well-connected" ... if anybody stumbles across Rebecca Shaw, I honestly don't think we could find enough real-world context and third party sources to assert enough notability. Again, I didn't mean to sound like an ass, but I'm serious about my advice and warnings. You're a regular editor and I'm always trying to get more committed people like you to look at the big picture and participate in a more significant way.— TAnthonyTalk 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[]


User talk:Ericthebrainiac

Despite common sense, in my opinion it is still original research and a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL for you to be projecting the runs of TV series in advance without sources. In the case of the daytime soaps, I work in television, and in this day and age we cannot assume they will keep running indefinitely. You appear to be a relatively new user and created the Category:2010s American television series yourself, so I feel you need to better defend your edits and get some consensus before tagging a series of articles into this category. Even in the case of a series like Nurse Jackie, which was just picked up for a 2nd season after a single episode was aired, there is nothing to back up a statement when and even if this additional season would air. I know it seems like nitpicking, but as there is no great benefit in adding your 2010 category, or detriment to the article by not adding it, by convention we should at least wait until the final months of 2009 to assess articles for such a category.— TAnthonyTalk 15:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Dune articles

Though I am a huge Dune fan/nerd/WP contributor, I agree that there are some extraneous character articles and such in regard to the later, non-Frank Herbert works. I have done a lot of work improving, merging, and/or redirecting various Dune articles, but in the case of Erasmus (Dune) and some others I have pretty much avoided spending too much time, knowing that (as you point out in the AfD) the topics fail WP:Notability (fiction) and there is unlikely to be enough coverage in external sources to change that. As I noted in the AfD, I feel that the significant/notable aspects of these characters can be dealt with in other existing articles.

I appreciate the distinction you made between AfD-ing Erasmus and Iblis Ginjo vs. PRODing Abulurd Harkonnen‎. I'm opening up this discussion with you because I'm protective of Dune articles and am always fearful of potential AfDs. I think you can see the notability where it truly lies, but I feel there are many articles that are not adequately referenced and "substantial" enough at this point to survive an AfD. Not that I can ask you to "check in" with me before you edit, LOL, I'm just hoping for a heads-up if you're thinking about AfDing anything else. I feel I have a good grasp on the "big picture" at WP, juxtaposed with the relative significance/potential of various Dune-related topics. I'm also well-known enough here in the Dune circle that a bold merge or redirect on my part (with explanation) would unlikely be challenged. Thanks in advance! — TAnthonyTalk 23:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[]

  • I'll be glad to run anything further by you. I haven't read all the Dune books (I stopped after God Emperor of Dune), so I judged based only on the lack of scholarly analysis. (I'm actually amazed at the level of scholarly analysis for Frank Herbert's original books, I would be saddened if they had not received academic attention.) Abductive (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Excessive detail in infoboxes

User talk:Redtoe

I think I've changed your work numerous times, but have you ever looked at Template:Infobox soap character#Relationship parameters? Infoboxes are not meant to be mini-articles, just an overview of basic info. Adding descriptors like "son, via Joe" is just clutter. People interested in extended relationships can read the article or follow the linked name. Further, saying "son" or "granddaughter" is completely unnecessary when the headings say "Children" and "Grandchildren" ... and it is especially unnecessary to pipe links with extended names. Why does the Marlena Evans article need the link Samantha "Sami" Brady when Sami Brady will do? Soap infoboxes are are cluttered and long enough (some are longer than the articles they're in!) without all this excess stuff. When editing in the future, please try to consider the accessibility and readability of articles to a general audience rather than the trivial soap fan approach; this is an encyclopedia, not Soap Opera Digest. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 00:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[]

Is this the right way to contact?

I mean I couldn't find any other place to write to you, so I write it here. I don't really understand why the images I uploaded are violating the copyright law and after you edited them why they do not. But they are presented, so its all right, I only wanted them, because they look better than the ones from Dune (film). But where is the Arrakis map? And why did you deleted my article about Sigma Draconis IV? Because the information already told on the House Ordos page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[]

This is indeed the place to contact me, thanks!
You mistakenly uploaded the images to Wikimedia Commons, the area for free images, and represented them as if you owned the copyright and could grant permission for their use here. The images are owned by the copyright holder of the video game, even though you screencapped them. I re-uploaded them to Wikipedia itself, and tagged them with the proper templates to state that though the copyright owners retain ownership, we are using the images minimally and in a small size under WP:Fair use. As this issue involves copyright violations, there are very strict rules, and I encourage you to click on the images and analyze what I've done on their description pages for future reference, and you can also ask for my help with future uploads.
I took the time to redo images because I agree that they are interesting. However, in the past many editors have challenged images from the video games because they are less "canon" than the film/miniseries, so I'm leaving the film ones in as well. Images which are considered "decorative" or redundant are also often removed to keep in line with the "minimal use" policy of copyrighted images, but they may be defended because they are different than the others. The "map" image didn't look like much, and so comes off as decorative.
The Draconis article was a two-sentence rehash of preexisting info, and would have been deleted anyway for lack of notability (and no articles would have linked to it). As it is, the House Ordos article has no references at all and is in danger of being tagged. We have combined many smaller Dune-related articles into larger ones, like Technology of the Dune universe and List of Dune terminology, to save them from being deleted on similar grounds. You will find that many Dune terms, characters, and such redirect to composite articles like these. There is actually a List of Dune planets (follow the link for Lankiveil, for example, to see how it works), but Draconis was omitted because it really only exists in the games.
Thanks again! — TAnthonyTalk 09:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Well I have to thank after all, that you helped to improve them. I am planning to upload the planets from Total Annihilation too. Approximately twelve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogzyx (talkcontribs) 10:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[]
No problem ... as a starting point, upload the images from here. Copy and paste all the templates etc. from File:Arrakis-Dune2000.jpg, but of course change the pertinent info, like description, copyright and article the image is used in. I'm not familiar with the Total Annihilation articles, but I took a look and can't really see where you'd be putting 12 planet images. I do not suggest that you create a separate stub article for each planet; if that's what you intend, I would bring up the idea at Talk:Total Annihilation beforehand. If you create a List of Total Annihilation planets or something, keep in mind that only a small amount of images may be used in a single article or list; a dozen in one article/list would violate WP:NFCC. Also, take a look at WP:Notability (fiction) ... articles that fail these criteria are eventually nominated for deletion. Even many of the Dune articles, though well put-together, technically violate policy and are missing references asserting notability etc. Let me know what you intend, and perhaps I can give some specific advice.— TAnthonyTalk 14:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[]

This is bad. I mean this is not against you, but, must I find an outer information source about the topic. And why must the article notable, would people just destroy knowledge, because it not fits into their image? In spite they ignore it, it is still exist. People don't walk to the library, and sort the books out what (in their opinion) culturally, artistically, etc. momentous and destroy the rest. This is only narrowness. Aka I can only create articles with my own information, because there are no other pages on the Internet about this topic, and I also know that the articles would only interest the Total Annihilation fans. I mean if some Dune articles are nominated for deletion, how could a computer game rival with Frank Herbert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogzyx (talkcontribs) 17:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[]

LOL, welcome to Wikipedia! Obviously everyone here has a different opinion about what is notable and what is trivia, but the existing guidelines are somewhat stacked against fictional topics. By my understanding, the general concept is that Wikipedia is not intended to contain all information on a given topic, but rather to provide an overview and be a starting point for further research, as a printed encyclopedia is. Of course, it is accepted that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and so it can and should cover more topics more extensively than would be possible/advisable on paper, but there are limits — and they are enforced, often very strictly. It's not that anyone wants to "destroy knowledge," but a threshhold of notability has been established to keep things manageable. For example, without it, anyone in the world could create a biographical article about themselves, or individual articles about every non-speaking extra in the film Titanic, or about every one of the 10,000+ daily episodes of One Life to Live that have aired since 1968. Editors could go to the Superman article and list every single instance in which the character has been mentioned or referenced in any TV series, film, book, or magazine ("On Frasier in the 1998 episode 'Big Deal,' Roz says that Superman is her favorite superhero.") You see how easily Wikipedia could become a huge mess.
You should definitely familiarize yourself with the video game article guidelines, which are extensive and specific. The idea is that exhaustive details about game play and such can (and often are) discussed on external websites or other game-specific wikis or blogs. Without being well-versed on the game and not knowing what you intend, it's hard for me to advise you on how to proceed. Just because a topic only seems of interest to fans doesn't necessarily mean it won't be notable in a more general sense, but at the same time my Spidey-sense tells me that the various locations within the game may not warrant significant coverage beyond a concise list within another article, and perhaps an image or two of ones that may stand out for some reason or another. Of course anything you add comes from your "own information," and material that is common knowledge and/or unlikely to be challenged can get by without specific references, but lesser-known info (and any kind of opinion or analysis) needs an external source. Total Annihilation and related articles seem to have many References and External links which may be helpful resources.
Images are a whole other story; even the most notable topics have a limited number of copyrighted images. What allows the site to use any at all is that efforts are made to not "abuse the privilege."
I would love to help you out if you're interested in giving me an idea of what you are hoping to contribute. I'm not the King of Wikipedia or the final word on any topic, but I can give you some advice and an idea of what challenges you may face.— TAnthonyTalk 19:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Part 2

I understand your arguments. I am not only want to create these arcticles, because I like TA, but (in my opinion) sometimes it is exciting to read about fictional planets or places of unique features. I think I am capable to collect sufficient information, to create an article for every single planet. Here are some basic data:

  • Empyrrean lush, green, Arm capital
  • Thalassean windy, ocean, Arm
  • Tergiverse IV wasteland, drained ocean, Core
  • Barathrum young, mineral rich, vulcanic, Core
  • Rougpelt dustbowl, few resources, red (ferric-oxides), Core
  • Dump refuse dump, moon of Core Prime, Core
  • Core Prime artifical, intelligent, Core capital
  • Aqueous Minor dry/wet each season for 200 years, Arm
  • Nigh Pilago archipelago, drained ocean, Arm
  • Aegus low gravity, moon of Empyrrean, Arm

After this who knows, I got the idea when I don't find something on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogzyx (talkcontribs) 19:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[]

I'm a Dune freak so I obviously get your motivation, I just don't see how this specific info could be expanded into individual articles. I suggest starting with a List of Total Annihilation planets along the lines of List of Dune planets, and I can help you so that links like Empyrrean would redirect to the appropriate item in your list. Also keep in mind, though, that an article is only useful when other articles link to it. Are any of these individual planets noted in existing TA articles? If they are not, it might suggest that they have limited notability even within the TA articles themselves. Do any game articles have lists of levels? Again,if you can't meet the video game guidelines I noted, your article(s) will probably be tagged for deletion by someone in the Video Game WikiProject.— TAnthonyTalk 20:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Well I have much more information (could be 1 A4 for each), but I didn't wanted to flood your page. And also, there are multiple maps, wich took place on the planets, so it is possible to link the TA pages to them (also the main TA page needs to be expanded), and because of the timeline the planets should be linked to each other. But my original idea was to creat stub articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogzyx (talkcontribs) 16:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[]
I would just hate to see you do a lot of work for nothing. But I would definitely start working on a draft of an article on a user subpage like User:Mogzyx/TA Planets or User:Mogzyx/Empyrrean, so that other editors don't mess with it/tag it until you've gotten it into an acceptable form. However, non-free images cannot be used in userspace, so don't upload any until the article is moved to main article space. Again, please read the video game article guidelines. You may have a full page of information, but if it's all in-universe plot/decriptions, the article is dead in the water.
Every WP article needs to be fully referenced, and though many are "in progress" and left alone, unsourced information can be removed by any editor at any time, and an unsourced or poorly sourced article can be nominated for deletion at any time. Editors can usually recognize the potential for references and will let non-controversial info remain, but technically there is no real "grace period" should someone challenge info or an article.
As expressed in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), articles on fictional topics cannot be all plot info; they also need info and references to establish real-world context and notability. For example, the article on Melange (fictional drug) ... this is obviously a hugely notable topic within the Dune universe. This article has many references, but most are from primary sources, meaning the books or films themselves, which is great but not enough for the article to be fully compliant with policy and therefore protected from deletion. The lead paragraph establishes the notability of the novel Dune (with secondary sources); this sets up some real-world context and helps lend weight to to the significance of the topic, but technically does not assert notability for melange itself. The reference to The Science of Dune, a book which analyzes the science of Herbert's novels in a real-world context, is the lone secondary source which really does. To be really strong, the article needs to reference reputable magazine/website articles and books discussing melange; in this case, I believe those exist and have yet to be added. The Arrakis article has an acceptable level of references from primary sources, but is still 99% plot. However, Arrakis likely has similar reliable, verifiable references yet to be added because it is an equally notable topic within the Dune universe. By comparison, I would guess that Caladan and Giedi Prime do not have as much coverage in external sources, because though they are arguably on the next level of importance/notability within the series, they are nowhere near as notable as Arrakis when looking from a mainstream approach. These articles are all plot and unlikely to ever be more; at this point the only thing keeping them in existence is probably their notability within the Dune universe itself, but this is a basically undefendable position in a formal deletion discussion. I fully expect to someday have to merge some more of the existing Dune planet articles into List of Dune planets, and most of the images will have to go to avoid the appearance of an image gallery.
As you said earlier, if Frank Herbert isn't immune from deletion, we can't expect Total Annihilation to be. I have a feeling your grand intentions will best be served in your own blog, or an external game-specific wiki. But I'd be interested in looking in on your progress and offer advice should you start developing something here.— TAnthonyTalk 17:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[]
Thanks all your help. I think the most important thing about the video game guideline is, that it must be interesting to non-gamers too, and I don't know if they would. But, how do I create a page like Mogzyx/Empyrrean? And is it permissible to create this way all the articles (eight after all, because I will put the moons together with their planet)? And don't you think it is luck that my first uploads were Dune planets, and you are a Dune fan? I mean if you weren't they could have been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogzyx (talkcontribs) 18:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[]
LOL, I guess it is luck ;) Simply follow the red link User:Mogzyx/Empyrrean to create a page there; basically just go to User:Mogzyx and in the address bar add a slash and the potential article name to create subpages. When you're finished, you can use the Move tool to move the article to mainspace, and then delete the user subpage itself by adding {{db-owner}} to it. Subpages are intended for this exact purpose, to work on article drafts, make test edits, and general experimentation. I have a few myself. You can have as many as you want as long as you're not displaying copyrighted images, or using them as personal pages to which you're directing external traffic.— TAnthonyTalk 18:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Hali, I saw that you put a TA sign on my page, where can I find those kind of signs? I also started an Empyrrean page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogzyx (talkcontribs) 09:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[]

There are literally hundreds of such user boxes (I created that one just for you, LOL) ... check out the category listing at Wikipedia:Userboxes#Gallery.— TAnthonyTalk 14:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[]

Here is a short description, check it out User:Mogzyx/Empyrrean. —Preceding undated comment added 11:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC).

Roak here.

The casting and re-casting was mentioned in the ananlysys but whi was it moved up? did I do something wrong, dude?--Leslie Roak (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[]

Hey there ... before I answer that, I've been meaning to say hello and thank you for your recent contributions. You seem to have read up on policy and such and have made some great edits, tagged some articles appropriately, etc. It is so appreciated when new editors take the time to learn a little about how and why things are done before they jump in and make drastic (and inappropriate) changes. Though I think we can use a little less of the "yo dude" stuff in your edit summaries and comments, LOL.
As far as Maxie Jones ... I moved the casting info into its own section because it has a source and was lost in the plot area. To be honest, your "Character analysis" section as it stands really needs to be slashed down and some of it perhaps incorporated into the storyline area. Specifically, the "Personality" section reads somewhat as editor point-of-view. The subsequent summaries of family, romances and such are presented in a non-encyclopedic way. It is more appropriate to incorporate notable facts into the plot summary, avoiding statements that require editor opinion or analysis. In general, any kind of discussion about a character beyond recounting plot needs to have a source; Wikipedia is not intended as a forum for original thought and analysis, but rather as an overview of information reported elsewhere, as in books, magazines or on reputable websites. Featured article Pauline Fowler is the ultimate example of what a fictional character article should be, but few soap characters will be as notable or have as much media coverage available. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Style guidelines for some basic advice, but there are several great examples of articles which, though not complete or perfect, give the right idea: Erica Kane and Todd Manning are well-sourced, for example, and I'm working on Adam Wilson (The Young and the Restless) right now. Keep in mind that most soap articles are in bad shape from a policy perspective, and you may find "unacceptable" elements in many articles and wrongfully assume they are acceptable.
Also, where did you find that new Claudia Zacchara image? We are technically required to provide the source on the description page. I add the uploader's name when I can in case there are questions in the future, but while it's fresh in your mind it would be great if you could note the webpage where you found the image. Also, I'm not sure if it was you I saw doing this, but formatting like boldface and italics have specific uses and should not be used to arbitrarily emphasize words or phrases an editor thinks are important, like the character's current portrayer or love interest in an infobox.
Thanks again for your continuing contributions, and I hope you take my comments in the helpful way in which they were intended. I am only concerned with valuable articles being improved and avoiding deletion, and try to help other editors and give advice whenever I can. I know we'll be seeing a lot of each other around here and I hope you'll come to me again if you have any questions. Thanks! — TAnthonyTalk 22:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[]
You also need to provide a source for the Alexis Davis image. When uploading images in the future, keep in mind that per fair use images policies they should be as small as possible, usually in the range of 250-300px, and they will look better in the infobox if cropped (the infobox autosizes to 220px, so Alexis' face gets kinda small in the version you uploaded). Your Sonny pic was excessively sized, and I don't feel like it illustrated the character any better. Also, WP administrators have advised us in the past that screencaps (or promo images that look like them) are preferred to promotional portraits from the network sites because those sites actually have language that forbids their content to be used elsewhere. This is not a hotly policed situation at this point, but I always advise going that way if possible to avoid any deletions in the future. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 00:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[]
Thanks so much for the advice man, it really helps. I'll get the Claudia pic's website and work harder to improve the plot usmmaries rather than have it in an analysis (lol). So Thanks again and you're welcome, I love working here but can I have your opinion on the Jason Morgan and Robin Scorpio articles? thanks. Plus, i'll get on the Michael Corinthos article. --Leslie Roak (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[]

Todd Manning#Romancing rape victim and rape revisited

I am thinking of splitting most of this section into its own article, similar to how it partly existed in the now redirected article Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke. This section has made the article too long, I do not want to leave out a lot of this information, and there is a lot more information regarding other things about Todd that I want to add to this article. Of course, I would not title it Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke; I would title it something like...Rape of Marty Saybrooke. Thing is...titling it "Rape of Marty Saybrooke" would most definitely mean that I should include a lot of information about the original rape (which would make the better article but is a lot of work) and would be taken by some people to mean that we are siding with people who consider "the second rape" to have actually been rape. Whether or not we do is irrelevant to Wikipedia, but "the second rape" would be under a non-neutral article title (even if I title it under a neutral heading in the article). Also, "Rape of Marty Saybrooke" sounds too much like a real-life rape incident. Thus, perhaps naming the article "Marty Saybrooke rape controversy" would be better.

What are your thoughts on this? Flyer22 (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[]

Very interesting question. The section is getting too large for the article and of course I see its importance, and yet I don't know if there's a precedent for an article built around a storyline in the way you envision. Without having read the current version of the article/section in detail, my major concern is that much of the section relies on a single source (the Nelson Branco article). Within context of the Todd Manning article, the storyline has notability and TV Guide Canada is an awesome source; separate, it will likely seem like coverage/analysis of Branco's story (and its analysis/opinion), which is not necessarily as notable in and of itself. Even with misc other sources to back up key points ... I would say, definitely try to find another TV/film/book storyline that is covered on its own and analyze it (and btw, any separate article you end up creating should contain the word "storyline" or something to make it clear it is a fictional topic, unless you are going with mere names). I hate to say it, but the more I think about it, my gut is telling me that this section within the Todd article should actually be trimmed; obviously the original rape is the defining storyline for the character, but does this latest story really outshine everything else? I feel like some dense coverage on the story would be enough without going into every nuaunce of Branco's discussion; interested readers can go to his article for details (and that is what Wikipedia really is, a starting point for further research, not a compendium of every fact on or sentence written about a topic).— TAnthonyTalk 14:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[]
Some people would disagree with you about TV Guide Canada, when coming from Nelson Branco, being an excellent source, LOL, but I get your point. I point out that EastEnders has a decent article built around a single storyline, called Who Shot Phil? There is also the Emmerdale article Who Killed Tom King?. Thus, precedent for having an article built around a storyline has been set (and probably by other television genres here before or in addition to those two). The way I envision creating an article of this type would be to make it better than those two. I get what you mean about most of the "second rape of Marty" section coming from Branco's first article about it; I was worried about that, but I did trim a bit of what he said days before coming to you about this. I also had to reword some of it, as to not be accused of WP:Close paraphrasing. The reason a lot of that section is sourced to him is because he went over all the problems fans have had with the storyline. The other two articles from Branco in the Todd Manning article about "the second rape" are interviews with Michael Malone and Trevor St. John. Thus, those sources from Branco are not simply about his own criticism of the storyline. Then there are the additional sources (which start the section off and help to end it), which is good. Does "the second rape" outshine everything else this relating to Todd? Of course not, but I am not sure that the original rape angered people as much as "the second one" and I currently do not have as much information about the original rape or other things about Todd, which has subsequently caused "the "second rape to seemingly have more bases which need to be covered. Really, I have been thinking of making an article about Marty's original rape for some time -- it would consist of all the needed information about the rape, the trial, and its impact on American soap opera (meaning fan reaction, critical reviews, and its legacy). Since there are a few scholarly sources which discuss it and sources from other valid sites, I have been thinking that I could make a good article out of all that.
Having an article solely about "the second rape" is probably not the best route to take, for the reasons you pointed out. But I also note that another good reason for splitting it, which Wikipedia allows in addition to it being well-sourced, is that leaving it in the Todd Manning article makes the article much longer. I would like you and I to give trimming "the second rape" section a shot. My main concern about trimming it, however, is having too many of the main or key points cut out. Plus, trimming it in half would only take it close to 84 kilobytes, which leaves the article still "too long" in regards its expected limit before splitting. I know, though, 84 kilobytes is still better than 100 when reducing size (unless needed information is being cut). And with all the other stuff I want to add to this article, I know that I will pass its "too long" limit again anyway, which makes 84 kilobytes or close to it even better in this case.
I will get on to trimming it today (right now). Any further trimming you feel that you can do without cutting out main or key points, I would appreciate (even though, if not for it making the article slower, I would prefer it all left in).
On a side note, TAnthony, what do you make of WP:Logical quotation (something I have been going by for some time now)? In the past, I have noticed that you do not go by "logical quotation." I mean, did you even know about it. "Logical quotation" often comes up in GA reviews and especially FA reviews. It seems that following this type of formatting is now being disputed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[]
I was vaguely aware of this (and am glad someone is disputing it) because it is not the norm for an American with a slight background in print such as myself (as noted at Quotation mark#Punctuation) and goes against my grain! Though I see the point, I actually wonder what the bulk of editors would do on instinct, because I can imagine you painstakingly punctuating an intricate article and then having people come along and "fix" it out of habit, preference, or ignorance. Hmmm.— TAnthonyTalk 05:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[]
LOL. Yeah, that is why I have not been fond of "logical quotation," because the general American audience has no idea what that is; it is "wrong quotation" as far as they are concerned, and many editors here (whether IPs, new editors, or experienced editors) often "correct" any "logical quotation" they see. I have seen articles here that are half in the American style and have in this "logical quotation" style due to this; some of it, however, is simply due to editors from Britain following correct formatting ("logical quotation") within their culture. I, too, am glad that "logical quotation" is being disputed here at Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[]

I will instead go ahead and get started on trimming this section tomorrow. Right now, I have matters to attend to off Wikipedia. Talk with you later. Thank you for always giving me great advice. Flyer22 (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[]

Okay, I am off to go better tweak the Todd Manning article and cut down on the section we discussed above. I may still create some type of Todd and Marty article about the original and "second rape," but until then...some of this commentary detail about "the second rape" will have to be disregarded from Todd's article. I will come back here and ask you what you think about the trim after I am done. Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[]
So far, I got it down to 95 kilobytes; most everything else there seems needed. I might be too close to that section (as a screenwriting teacher would say of a writer's script) to see any further significant trimming that would most definitely be okay, though. If that is the case, it would be best for me to stop editing the article for a week or two in order to better see any flaws in my keeping the section as it currently is...or to have someone not as close to it look over it/likely edit it (such as you). I cannot stop editing that article for a week or two right now (I want to get some things taken care of with that article while I am being a little more active on Wikipedia). Flyer22 (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[]
I'd be happy to look it over, just let me know when you're "through" with that section. Or are you adding stuff to other areas? I think I recall the last time I looked it over there were some other things I wanted to work on in other sections, but I don't want to get in your way, and I have other things to do for the next few days anyway.— TAnthonyTalk 03:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[]
I am through adding to that section; it does not need any more information, unless more of it is going to be cut or it is a small piece of criticism about that storyline from some other good source not already covered in that section. And do not ever worry about getting in my way. We have helped each other out with that article since I started editing it. It is always nice to have a good editor working with me. We can always talk over any addition one us may not like that much, and compromise. Flyer22 (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[]
The more I think about it, a good article about the original rape could be made. Having an article about a storyline is no different than having an article about an episode, as long as it is notable enough. I would likely name it "Marty Saybrooke rape storyline." I am just not sure when, if ever, I would get around to making that article.
Anyway, anything you ever need to discuss with me about Todd, any other character, or whatever else, you know where to find me. Flyer22 (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[]

Roak here apologizing

Hey, I'm sorry. No hard feelings? --Leslie Roak (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[]

I would never hold a grudge over this kind of stuff, though I reserve the right to get annoyed ;) The truth is, I'm not perfect and don't know everything, but I've been around here longer and have seen many discussions regarding these types of articles, and made my own mistakes. "Powerusers" like myself don't expect to be blindly followed and are always willing to discuss these issues, it just gets frustrating when editors seem to do things (and fight for their edits) without looking at the "big picture." Most soap-related articles are in bad shape, and people like AniMate and I are just trying to keep as many articles as we can from getting worse from a certain standpoint. I probably should just let some of them be "destroyed" with trivia and other bad practices and just let them get deleted when someone comes along wanting to do so, but every such deletion jeopardizes these articles as a whole. Mainstream editors already think soap articles are a joke, if we all start ignoring policy and completely turn them into an extension of Soap Opera Digest or the fansites, how can we expect them to not all be deleted? So many editors like yourself have the time and interest to reall contribute and make more Featured Articles like Pauline Fowler, but instead spend countless hours updating infoboxes and trivia. It's a waste. — TAnthonyTalk 00:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[]

Roak here, Willing on fixing articles to look like Pauline

I'm gonna do this. Just give me time. --Leslie Roak (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[]

I'm starting off with Maxie Jones in 3 days. Tomorrow's my wedding and I have to go on honeymoon soon. --Leslie Roak (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[]

Character ages, yet again

I think it's getting to the point where we need to remove the year from the "birth" field in the soap character infobox, unless their age is somehow notable. We have editors putting the actors birth year into the field, we have editors putting in the year that the character was actually born on screen, and we have editors putting in a year that was mentioned once on screen. It's silly and frankly it's trivial. Any thoughts? Flyer, since you (and anyone else interested) watch this page please chime in as well. AniMatedraw 23:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[]

Yeah, I've "hated" the birth/age fields for awhile now for just that reason; this info is rarely of note and definitely trivial, and the shows are usually purposely vague and/or change and revise relative dates and ages.— TAnthonyTalk 22:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[]
AniMate, what do you mean by "remove the year from the 'birth' field"? I say to you and TAnthony that I have no problem with whatever you want to do in order to reduce this age problem with the soap opera character long as the age can still be mentioned in the infobox when "needed," notable in some way, or not too complicated unless well-explained. For example, I prefer Erica Kane's age to be noted in her infobox and article text, because not only is it well-sourced but her de-SORASing is pretty famous and scrutinized within the soap opera community. Flyer22 (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[]
I can see few examples where a year would be notable in an infobox. Erica Cane's age should be discussed in depth, and you can't do that in an infobox. The purpose of an infobox is to relate basic facts, and her age isn't a basic fact but rather a complex and confusing issue. I guess I see the character infobox as a repository for the trivial that so many of our great editors are obsessed with, and the actual articles where we should discuss the complexities of changing ages. AniMatedraw 07:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[]
Ah, I hear ya. Thanks for explaining. It is just that I usually do not see the harm/am not annoyed by listing the age in the infobox when it is due to the reasons about this that I stated above. First and foremost, the age should be sourced. But one of the main problems is that some of these editors are not even sure of these ages (which is understandable, give soap opera's SORAS incidents) and subsequently guess the ages. Flyer22 (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[]
Yes, it does seem like if a character's birthdate/age is notable (likely in a SORAS situation), it can be somehow discussed within the article with sources. Age info that isn't notable/sourced enough to appear there shouldn't be reflected in the infobox either. I'm tempted to boldly change the template and see if anyone notices?? I mean, I created the darn thing ;) — TAnthonyTalk 21:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[]
Can it be changed in a way that the age can still be noted in the infobox during either of the instances I stated above? Flyer22 (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[]
I think it's pretty much in or out; in the specific case of Erica, I agree that her several-times-revised age is of note. However, I would argue that just listing "1962" in the infobox (despite sources) is somewhat confusing/misleading; first of all, it prompts the reader to compare it to 1970, when Lucci and the series began, which creates the anomaly that the character was eight. More importantly, the date itself is artificially calculated using airdates and Kendall's onscreen dates, etc. Because we are dealing with both real-life and fictional time spans, that Erica was born in 1962 makes no more sense than that she born in 1955. Including the year in the infobox adds little to the understanding of the character, and instead adds confusion. I would prefer a paragraph using the sources that illustrates to the reader how the character's age was adjusted over time due to Kendall's existence and aging.— TAnthonyTalk 01:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[]
The year is confusing, but can we not just do without the year (as AniMate stated above) and simply list the age (if sourced) in the infobox? Her age being tampered with is noted within the article, but it does not go into the most recent detail (even though the Kendall Hart Slater article does) perhaps because Rocksey wants better sources for it. But, to me, the show itself is as good a source as any. Flyer22 (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[]
Don't you think putting "Age 47" is confusing/misleading as well? Why is it at all important? It is the very definition of trivia. It only makes any sense if it is explained in its entirety, as in the text of an article. I would argue that the only ages that should be in an infobox are cut-and-dry ones with no contradictions, retconning or SORAS; good luck finding one of those!— TAnthonyTalk 03:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[]
Putting "Age 47" is not as confusing if we put the little note beside it titled "Retconned" or "de-SORASed." While these soap opera articles should be for the general public, most people who read these articles are soap opera viewers and are quite familiar with character ages being retconned, SORASed and de-SORAsed. If the age is noted within the text, what is the big deal about it being noted in the infobox? It is still confusing even when explained in the text. A casual reader who strolls by and sees that the age does not make sense will likely want to do some research about that, such as read the article to see what the deal is with that.
Removing the age from the soap opera infoxbox is not just about daytime soap opera characters; there are also primetime soap opera characters, such as characters from The O.C.. Primetime characters' ages usually make sense, and altering the soap opera infobox to not include age would also be affecting those articles. I said it before, but I simply do not view the age of characters as trivial; age or age range is often a defining trait of a character when created. Flyer22 (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[]

I have a feeling we can go back and forth on this forever ;) The fact that you would have to "explain" the number with a "retcon/SORAS" note seems proof to me that it is not appropriate for an infobox. Explaining it in the text presents the info as generated: "Erica is established to be roughly 15 when the show begins; she is later said to have given birth to a daughter who is 23 in 1993, but in 2002 that child's birthdate is revised to 1976." Makes perfect sense, and more importantly, is not presented in an in-universe manner or expressing numbers calculated using original research. The more I think about it, the more I beleieve that once any kind of retcon occurs, any simple represnentation of "age" becomes pretty much irrelevant OR. Removing the fields is probably drastic, but policing articles in other ways is likely an exercise in futility. I suppose in most cases, what should we care if random articles become juvenile piles of trivia? But I wonder how this info would fare in a serious article review. You're placing too much importance on the infobox; it's an overview, not a mini-article. I would remind you that there are large groups of editors with very good reasons why infoboxes needn't exist at all. And I don't understand why you would intentionally want to include something that "does not make sense" to a reader? 04:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Butting in here, but I just wanted to say that I agree that anything to do with age should be removed from the infobox. Not only is it trivial information that always changes, imo it also goes against WP: TENSE.
As for the Erica Kane age retcon, this is what it says about that in the article right now in the family section of the article, "Kendall Hart first appears on the series in 1993. In the beginning of the character's tenure, scripts detail her as sixteen years old. Due to Erica's original 1955 birth year, this caused an outcry from viewers of the series since Erica's age at the time of the rape combined with Kendall's age conflicted with the All My Children timeline and made Erica and Kendall too young. The writers attempted to rectify this by aging Kendall to 23 years old and scripting the character to repeatedly mention her new age, emphasizing the change...Kendall leaves town in 1995 and returns years later in 2002 with a new actress, Alicia Minshew, in the role. The character's birth year was changed again, this time to 1976, which pushed Erica's birth year forward to 1962." So, TAnthony, you think the birth years that are calculated based on the changing information should be removed? Rocksey (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[]
Personally, I do. Unless it was stated that Erica Kane was born in 1962, editors doing the math is original research. I also echo TAnthony in questioning how this type of information would fare in a serious article review. "Well it was mentioned once that the character was born on July 21, and his daughter is 15 years old, and since Jim was a college senior and Mary was 18 when she was pregnant and stated that Jim was 3 years older than her, we came to the conclusion that Jim is 36 and was born in 1973." Frankly, I'm becoming more and more tempted to take TAnthony's position and turn a blind eye to let the raving fangirls do what they will to the articles and fill them with worthless trivia. I'm just not sure we should make it easy for them. A big part of me wishes WP:Editor review was a requirement so the brain trust desperately trying to insert a birth year derived from original research could see just how valuable their edits are. AniMatedraw 06:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[]
TAnthony, soap opera ages when SORASed or otherwise altered do not make sense either way, explained in text or not, due to how they follow the current timeline in addition to changing the character's birth date within the fictional timeline. But we include that information, regardless, because it is a apart of that character's history. I do not see why when any kind of retcon occurs, any simple representation of age becomes "pretty much irrelevant OR" or trivial. I see absolutely no difference in listing the age in the infobox as opposed to stating the age in the text, other than the text going into detail. If one is familiar with references, they would click on the referenced age in the infobox to simply get a likely explanation. And I personally have not seen large groups of editors with very good reasons for why infoboxes need not exist at all, but that is another discussion.
Rocksey, how is including character ages going against WP:TENSE? Do you mean because the age is changing with time, that it is changing instead of staying the same as it would if a viewer were watching the story from the beginning? If so, when a viewer watches a story, the story is constantly changing, anyway, as you know. If you mean past tense, listing the age may go against WP:TENSE for characters who have died within the series, but oh well. Prime time characters and fictional characters from other genres list the the ages of characters in their infobox. One example would be anime character Mireille Bouquet. Book and film character Jason Bourne's age is even listed, though it changes over the course of the stories. I ask you, TAnthony and AniMate why age should be removed from the soap opera character infobox when other fictional character genres retain age in their infoboxes? Seeing this case as "special" because these are soap opera characters and because you are tired of IPs and inexperienced editors putting in unsourced ages is not a valid enough reason to eliminate all soap opera character ages from the infobox. Editors dealing with prime time character articles and other fictional character articles also deal with unsourced age additions, but they have not eliminated the age option from their infoboxes. The age of a character is sometimes a central part of a storyline. This was clear with One Life to Live constantly stating Starr Manning as 16 in 2008. Unless the character's age is very irrelevant or unable to be reported due to storyline or legacy reasons (or both), as in the cases of Superman and Jason Voorhees, I do not see why it should not be mentioned (other than being unsourced, if it s). I definitely see why Todd Manning's age should not be listed, though, since the 1993 rape storyline is so famous within the American soap opera community and we are now supposed to believe that the rape happened a few years before 1993. But at the same time, I want a section about this in the Todd Manning article or some note about it there. In this case, I can see TAnthony's point about ages being better noted in the text than in the infobox.
AniMate, I disagree that "[un]less it was stated that Erica Kane was born in 1962, editors doing the math is original research." It is not truly original research when the show states that Kendall's birth year was changed to 1976, and, this, of course, alters Erica's age as well. Any time the age of a soap opera character's child is changed, it also changes that character's age. This was most certainly seen with Marty Saybrooke, which caused debate about it on her talk page. If Kendall's children were suddenly aged to 30, for example, there is no way that the audience would still be expected to believe that Kendall is also in her 30s. By keeping the information you propose to be kept out of the Erica Kane article about her age only further confuses the issue.
You three have seemingly already made up your minds about not including the ages in the infobox, and my single objection is not going to stop this action from taking place. I get your annoyance at people putting in unsourced ages, but I have never cared much about that to go around articles removing or reverting unsourced ages. If you all were not as worried about it, you would not be proposing this idea. But then again, I would probably feel like you do if I had as many soap opera articles on my watchlist and were actually looking at my watchlist. I am tired of debating this age topic and am no longer as passionate about keeping the character ages in the soap opera infobox. If you remove it, TAnthony, I will not throw a bitch fit. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[]
Such drama! I will probably not be so drastic as to change the template, but I do think you're missing the point. You have a very in-universe perspective. Erica Kane is a fictional construct, so age does not apply as it does to a real person. You are looking at this (and probably other) fictional character articles somewhat without a real-world frame of reference. You said, "Kendall's birth year was changed to 1976, and, this, of course, alters Erica's age as well. Any time the age of a soap opera character's child is changed, it also changes that character's age. This was most certainly seen with Marty Saybrooke, which caused debate about it on her talk page" and "I definitely see why Todd Manning's age should not be listed, though, since the 1993 rape storyline is so famous within the American soap opera community and we are now supposed to believe that the rape happened a few years before 1993." No actual ages are "changing," storylines are just creating continuity discrepancies that force the viewer to suspend disbelief. You are trying to fit fictional concepts into a real-world context, in this case by establishing artificially contrived "ages" because one character is "born" in a certain year and thus her mother must be at least 14 years older, etc. etc. It does not have to "make sense" that Starr was "born" in 1996 but is now 17, or that Cole was "born" around 1998 but is now 18 and older than Starr. These are fictional events that have not actually occurred, though they may be viewed as "happening" on a particlar airdate. As we know, one fictional "day" can last weeks onscreen, Thanksgiving and Christmas may seem to occur mere days apart, children age 10 years in a day, and even within the fictional world, who's to say that what "happens" on the show on May 1, 1993 is happening in 1993 at all, and not before or after? When we reference dates in an article, they are really from a real-world perspective. When AniMate and I call 1962 original research, we mean that though it may be based on "facts" accumulated from reliable sources, you are basically assembling them to present "new facts." An accurate presentation of the facts is something like "Erica is established to be roughly 15 when the show begins; she is later said to have given birth to a daughter at age 14, and in 2002 that child's birthdate is established as 1976" not "... in 2002 Erica's birthdate is revised to 1962." When I wrote above about the facts "making sense," I didn't mean that her in-universe age makes sense, I meant that the retelling of the sequence of events in the real world (writers changing information) makes sense. In some ways you are trying to present these characters as if they were real people. This is an encyclopedia discussing a fictional topic, and so the "facts" will not "add up" because fiction is fluid; in cases like Erica, you are attempting to make them fit by defining her age, but doing so is impossible because of the retcons. Which is the point, since a fictional topic really cannot be held up to non-fictional limitations. How is Superman any different from a soap character? He is fictional, so he is ageless. The fact that one actress has portrayed Erica on a single program makes it tempting to see her age as more tangible, but it is still fiction, and cannot be firmly established. And by the way, the comic character infobox has no age parameter, and Superman is a Featured Article. Actually, none of the fictional character Featured Articles I know of include age in the infobox. Other fictional media-specific infoboxes like those for Star Wars and such don't seem to include age either. And Jason Bourne and Mireille Bouquet are start-class articles which likely have yet to be assessed in any significant way. I'd actually be interested to see if any "quality" articles touch on the age thing; I would guess that any that do are for characters whose age is clear-cut, like Molly Ringwald's character in Sixteen Candles, LOL. This reminds me to point out that just because the parameter exists and is used in the generic character box does not mean it should, or that it is meant to apply across-the-board. Character addresses were added to the soap box to accommodate one of the British soaps in which they are more important because the characters are somewhat classified by their address; the field becomes a trivia black hole in most other soap articles. You know me, I'm a soap fan and I add and preserve info in articles that might be construed as trivia to some editors. In principle I can concede that noting an (uncomplicated) age in an infobox is harmless, but it can also be construed as trivia, and I would argue that in most cases it does little to increase understanding of a character. I like Starr, I am not appalled by the fact that the article notes her age, but in the context of the overview an infobox provides, it is meaningless. It is really only helpful when discussing her current storylines, in which the character is pregnant as a minor and subject to her parents' control, etc. Once she's an adult, whether she's 19 or 30 does not seem to be of any importance.— TAnthonyTalk 04:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[]
I am not the one who made it "such drama." You and AniMate did. I object to your saying that I am "missing the point" and that I have "a very in-universe perspective." I mean, really? In what way do I have a "very in-universe perspective"? Because from my contributions to these crappy soap opera articles, it would appear that I have a very out-of-universe perspective. You say that "Erica Kane is a fictional construct, so age does not apply as it does to a real person." I get that, and yet I realize how age is applied to soap opera characters; these characters mostly go by real time. The changes you made to the Erica Kane article should not have been made until this discussion was through. It makes no sense whatsoever to state that Erica is age 53–54. This makes no sense due to Kendall's age within the realm of real time that soap operas go by. The soap opera community is quite aware that Erica's age was retconned to 1962 when Alicia Minshew's Kendall took over the role. This is something Soap Opera Central got right, and other soap opera columnists have stated over the years. You had no problem with Erica's age rightfully being stated as 1962 before. Why now? If you insist on stating her age as 53-54, then I am certainly all for removing the ages from these character soap opera infoboxes.
You say that "No actual ages are 'changing,' storylines are just creating continuity discrepancies that force the viewer to suspend disbelief" and that I am "trying to fit fictional concepts into a real-world context, in this case by establishing artificially contrived 'ages' because one character is 'born' in a certain year and thus her mother must be at least 14 years older, etc. etc." I say that if the viewer has to suspend disbelief in these cases, the ages are changing. You know how soap opera ages work, so I do not know why you are acting as though I am being some silly fan girl. The Marty Saybrooke rape storyline happened in 1993, within real life and fiction; that rape storyline is now said to have happened in 1988 within the story. That is a change, which also changed the characters' ages (though back to ages that make more sense, given their children's ages). This is why we call it retconning. Yes, to the fictional characters, their ages have never changed. But we know differently, even while suspending disbelief. If a character is 10 one day, then 17 the next, that is a change. To say that we should have Kendall remain listed as age 30 even when her kids are aged to 30 is ridiculous -- that is the point I am making, and is also the same point in regards to Erica's age. You argue that the ages do not have to make sense because these are fictional characters? No offense, you know I respect you, but I call bull on that. These characters being fictional does not mean that anything is allowed regarding them. That is why critics often criticize some fictional plots as being unrealistic, even in regards to soap operas...such as Todd "rapemancing" Marty. I am quite use to soap opera character ages not making sense, but it is their own fault for following the real world timeline and yet then drastically aging a character (or, in Erica's case, drastically de-aging). You even earlier pointed out the problems with Erica's age due to soap operas following the real world timeline. Defining Erica's age is not impossible due to the retcons. If real world time is not supposed to matter, then why do the retcons bother you when it comes to listing the characters' ages?
How is Superman any different from a soap opera character? He is fictional, you say, so he is ageless? And yet I point out that ages are often a part of fictional characters. Superman is ageless. But Erica Kane and other soap opera characters, who clearly age onscreen and within the storyline, are not. You say that none of the fictional character Featured Articles you know of include age in the infobox? What about Pauline Fowler? Her date of birth and death is listed. Other fictional media-specific infoboxes like those for Star Wars and such not including age is very reasonable, seeing as those characters actually seem stuck in time, as opposed to soap opera characters who follow so much of real world time that it seems silly to think of them as ageless. The Jason Bourne and Mireille Bouquet articles were not meant to be excellent examples in this discussion, but I can certainly give better examples than those. Flyer22 (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[]
By the way, I am now willing to concur with the removal of ages from the soap opera character infoboxes, if you have not noticed from my objection to your recent listing of Erica's age. Most things Collectonian says gets me onboard, anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[]
Flyer, I did not mean to insult or enrage you with my comments; I am obviously aware of your many contributions and am not suggesting that you are a fan who doesn't know the difference between soaps and reality, or that you don't know the proper format for articles. What I mean by your slightly in-universe perspective at times has just been proven again by your comment above. You have a need to assign ages to fictional characters, and to extrapolate dates and timespans from facts and clues: this is an in-universe perspective, because you are not using the real-world as your frame of reference. The shows are fictional things that exist in our world. The difference may be hard to see when you're talking about a single actor in the same role on the same series, but recasting and retconning and transplanting characters into different pieces of fiction make the difference between fact and fiction clear. Superman is no different than Erica, he has just been used in various media with different performers and different timelines. I'm not saying you think soap plotlines are real, but though you may not see it, in your comments you talk about storylines with an in-universe slant.
You make an issue about Erica's age (birthdate 1955) "makes no sense" in relation to Kendall's new birthdate of 1976. EXACTLY. Either Kendall could not have been born in 1976 because the show didn't start until 1970, or Erica could not have been 15 when the show started, or she was not 14 when she had Kendall ... and yet all are true. Because none of it is real. There is no way in which all of the "facts" make sense. I ended up putting in the age in the infobox because reliable sources asserted the character's age in 1970 and only OR disputed it. 1962 is a number invented by adding 14 to 1976. That is original research. Period. You say, "The soap opera community is quite aware that Erica's age was retconned to 1962." No, the soap community is aware that Kendall's birthdate was ultimately established as 1976. Making this apply to another character is OR. The same way that using any SORASed character's age to calculate the age of their parents is OR. Similarly, the OLTL rape is now being said to have happened "20 years ago" and you are translating that to mean 1988. And then you are applying that to the characters, meaning "they were in college then so they must have been around 20 and so that means ...." This is what original research is, editor synthesis and analysis of facts. Ultimately all that really can be asserted for sure are relative ages, meaning that parents are older than children. Yes, sometimes it all makes as much sense as if it were real, but the fact that a writer can rewrite "history" and make a toddler into a teen in a day changes the rules.
I can tell by your comments that you are never going to get what I'm saying, and that's fine. Hopefully someday you'll be part of a broader discussion on one of these articles that touches on some of the same ideas. I am going to try and resist the temptation to touch the OR-laden SORAS section in the Kendall Hart Slater article. I've got some other character articles I'm working on that I'd like to see join Pauline as Featured articles, and as probably the best-known American soap opera character I'd like to someday guide Erica to that as well. But it needs some work, and there is clearly no point in my bothering to make tweaks if I'm not going to work on the article as a whole.— TAnthonyTalk 17:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[]
You keep saying that "[I] have a need to assign ages to fictional characters, and to extrapolate dates and timespans from facts and clues: this is an in-universe perspective, because you are not using the real-world as your frame of reference." I say, "What????" The real world is most definitely being used as my time frame in these cases, because daytime soap operas go by real world time. To act as though they do not and change Erica's article to the weasel wording about a "possible age discrepancy" is off. This so-called in-universe perspective that I have is followed by the show (its writers and producers) and the soap opera community at large. How do I have a need to assign ages to fictional characters, and yet the writers do not? The writers give these characters ages and create the show timelines. Superman is different than Erica, for the very fact that he has been used in various media with different performers and different timelines. My take on this has nothing to do with having an in-universe slant. I am simply acknowledging the fact that daytime soap operas follow the real world timeline. Why do you keep acting like that is not the case? That is the difference between Superman and Erica Kane. If characters' ages are not being changed, as you argue, then why have we had soap opera writers comment on this and say that the fans are smart enough to calculate the characters' ages when the aging of a character's child changes that character's age in return? Are we going to call these soap opera writers in-universe as well? When Michael Malone assigned ages and age ranges to a few of his fictional characters was he being in-universe? We all know that these characters are not real, but ages are given to fictional changes. It is make-believe. And, in the cases of daytime soap opera characters, these ages change (mostly due to children characters being aged). If characters' ages are not being changed, why do we even have an article called Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome? Why do we have soap opera columnists talking about SORAS and appropriately calculating character ages, as even soap opera writers have acknowledged that they know the deal with this?
The show not starting in 1970 has no bearing on Kendall being born in 1976; Erica's age at that time did/does. You ended up putting the "wrong age" in the Erica Kane infobox, no matter reliable sources. And, yes, Erica being 50-something at this time is "wrong," because it was retconned. The "original research" which you say disputes it is basic math. Erica's age was affected by Kendall's age before, and to act like that was not the case again is logic of yours that I do not follow. To call basic math original research (basic math that even soap opera writers acknowledge will be followed when they do this type of aging, as I noted above), as to say that if a character has sex with two characters one day and three the next day....we cannot say that character has had sex with five characters over the course of two days, is silly. Unless the writers reveal otherwise (other sex that character has had offscreen), that character will have only had five sexual partners over the course of those two days. Erica being born in 1962 is a number invented by adding 14 to 1976 due to the show itself. You say, "...the soap community is aware that Kendall's birthdate was ultimately established as 1976. Making this apply to another character is OR." Yet I point out that the writers did this before, acknowledge that this type of aging affects more than one character; Erica being born in 1962 is even evidenced by Bianca Montgomerys' current age (now 25), who was revealed as a lesbian in 2000 at age 16. Even Carolyn Hinsey not too long ago stated that Erica Kane is around 44 years old (when talking about that's character's controversial romance with character Ryan Lavery). She is off by three years, but, clearly, even the "soap opera experts" acknowledge Erica as younger than 50. The One Life to Live Marty Saybrooke rape is not just said to have now happened "20 years ago" but also in 1988; this was reported to have been established on air this year. But even if it were original research, you had no problem with this "original research," editor synthesis and analysis of facts before. You even once better formatted the reference from Soap Opera Central for Erica Kane's age as being 1962 - you gave your approval for that (in fact, you often gave your approval for the use of Soap Opera Central, which led other editors, including me, to not view the use of that site's character biographies as a problem), and yet now you are acting as though it is absurd to list Erica's birth year as 1962. I know that you, as well as all of us experienced editors here have now "seen the light" about using Soap Opera Central's character biographies as references, but this is not just about Soap Opera Central, but everything else I stated above as pointing to Erica's birth date now being 1962. You say that all that really can be asserted for sure are relative ages, meaning that parents are older than children. And yet, if Kendall's children were suddenly aged to her current age, let us say for arguments sake, as I proposed before, you would be against making the calculation that Kendall is older and exactly how much older because it would be "original research," would it not?
You say that I am not going to get what you are saying, as if I am living in my own little universe. Well, I get what you are saying. You should get what I am saying. But, yes, I do not know what you mean by "Hopefully someday [I'll] be part of a broader discussion on one of these articles that touches on some of the same ideas." The Kendall Hart Slater article is truthful. But, oh, right, there is WP:TRUTH. You have got some other character articles you are working on that you would like to see join Pauline as Featured articles, and so do I. These no-brainer ages would not be a problem. I realize that you view character ages as unimportant, for some reason. But I never will consider the ages of characters to be trivial; as a screenwriter, age or age range is often one of the first things I pen about a character, as do many writers. I simply cannot view age or age range as not being a defining element of a fictional character, unless it is a case such as Superman, Bart Simpson, or something similar to that (but even in Superman's case, he is first given an age range when he debuts as a baby, and Bart is almost always defined as a little kid). To me, age, when relevant within that particular fiction, is far more important to list than the name of a fictional town a character grew up and or lives in. Age or age range is often as much a defining element of a character as gender is. Rarely ever do I come across a script where the character's age or age range is not listed. So to see comments on Wikipedia stating that age is trivial, not important, or something "un-defining" regarding fictional characters is baffling to me. I get your points, but just because I do not agree with you on all or most of what you have stated on this topic does not mean that I am slightly in my own little in-universe world. If you are close to done debating this, let me that we can both move on. Flyer22 (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[]
No time for a lengthy rebuttal. But obviously you are forgetting that this is an encyclopedia. An article about a fictional character should be like an article about a toaster, not a biography from within the show's universe. Presenting any of it from the point of view of the fictional world is incorrect. Saying, "Erica was born in 1955 until 2002, at which point her new birthdate is 1962" is doing that. "In-universe" is a Wikipedia term, that's what we are talking about. Why are you comparing yourself and other contributors to the writers who are writing the show and soap press who are reporting it? OF COURSE age is relevant to writers and storyline, that is not what we're talking about. I can't believe you're actually defending OR with a "basic math" argument. They made Kendall's birthdate 1976 to jive with Alicia Minshew, how can you in all seriousness logically apply that to Lucci's character for our purposes here? Or any SORAS character for that matter? I understand your need to reconcile the disparate facts and arrive at a logical conclusion based on the most recent facts (the "new" 1976 date "replaces" previous information) but ALL of the facts are still facts: Erica WAS 15 in 1970, Erica WAS raped at 14, Kendall WAS 16 in 1993 and then she WAS 23 the same year, and then 26 in 2002. And if you can't see the fangirl shining through your own comments, so be it.— TAnthonyTalk 21:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[]
I am not forgetting that that this is an encyclopedia. You argue that "[p]resenting any [biography from the point of view of the fictional world]" is incorrect. I state that we do that all the time here (present biography from the point of view of the fictional world, with both bad and good articles), such as with naming a character's "special abilities" in comic book infoboxes and with plot summaries in general. It is not incorrect regarding those characters' fictional histories. How is including the age of a character in the infobox any different than including all that other stuff about that character in the infobox, most of which is fictional? Why am I "comparing myself and other contributors to the writers who are writing the show and soap press who are reporting it"? Because age being relevant to storylines is partly what we were/are talking about in this discussion. You were acting as though age regarding fictional characters is irrelevant, trivial, and something that does not really define them, which is something you have stated more than once now. I was arguing why age is not irrelevant and trivial regarding fictional characters and that these age changes are sometimes commented on by the writers of these shows and the soap opera community. If I am in-universe for listing a character's age, how is that not the case for soap opera writers who give these characters ages in the first place? You say that you cannot believe that I am "actually defending OR" with basic math? I cannot believe that you are acting as though every little thing on Wikipedia needs to be sourced. Do we also have to source that 2 + 2 = 4 here on Wikipedia? Or that the color of the ocean and sky during the day is blue? Of course not. That is my point. You state, "They made Kendall's birthdate 1976 to jive with Alicia Minshew, how can you in all seriousness logically apply that to Lucci's character for our purposes here? Or any SORAS character for that matter?" My answer? I did above. Just as you state that "Erica WAS 15 in 1970, Erica WAS raped at 14, Kendall WAS 16 in 1993 and then she WAS 23 the same year, and then 26 in 2002," the same is true for Erica's birth year being changed to 1962 in 2001. And that has nothing to do with "the fangirl shining through" me. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[]

Sigh. I'm not saying not to mention fictional facts like super powers. Obviously I'm not able to aptly explain the nuance of in-universe. I am not saying that the concept of age is unimportant to characters and stories. I am saying that, at Wikipedia, the significance of an exact number is diminished when you have to use bad practice like original research to get it. The Kendall situation is not basic 2+2 math because you are synthesizing facts from different contexts. "In 2002 they said that Kendall was born in 1976, and in 1993 they said that Erica was raped at 14, so naturally it was 14 years before 1976." That is an in-universe perspective and original research at the same time. You're trying to make facts add up that never will because they are not limited by real-world time. And for the record, soap writers are by definition writing in-universe! Unbelievable.— TAnthonyTalk 23:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[]

TAnthony, I have already gone over my thoughts about this. I mostly disagree with you on this topic. No need to debate it even further into the dirt. The character infoboxes topic is now settled, if enough other editors do not come in and object to this "settlement." Most editors here will not even know of the decision to remove all character infobox ages until it is "too late." Some of them are likely to bitch about it when they find out. I am going to ask one of the editors who heavily contributed to the Pauline Fowler article, Gungadin, to weigh in on this matter, preferably at the discussion about it linked below. I did get a smirk out of you stating, "And for the record, soap writers are by definition writing in-universe!" Yes, the same goes for other types of writers as well. The "same" indeed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[]
And, also, it has been quite clear that this discussion and the one linked below about age has not solely been about using "bad practice" for character ages (which you also originally took part in) but also about you, AniMate, and others feeling that listing character ages is trivial and being annoyed with reverting unsourced age additions. But like I stated, my thoughts on all this have already been made. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[]
Age is trivial enough that it is better left out than presented using flimsy original research (as they seem to be in most cases), that is the point we're trying to make. As far any outcry over the infobox, I think pretty much all the "serious" soap editors are monitoring this discussion. And the fact that you seem to think what we are supposed to be doing here is akin to writers creating fiction disturbs me more than anything.— TAnthonyTalk 00:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[]
I disagree with you on the age topic, of course, as noted above. As for "pretty much all the 'serious' soap editors" monitoring this discussion, a few soap opera editors are not the bigger community, now are they? I was talking about editors of all genres using the character infobox. And I never said that what we are supposed to be doing here is akin to writers creating fiction. You got the impression that I was stating that. Oh well. It can disturb you. You, AniMate, and others worrying over ages of fictional characters this much can be viewed as disturbing and is something I see as trivial as compared to the bigger scheme of things on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[]

One more thing. I am done with this debate, but I do want to state something else: People cite or get caught up in Erica Kane's birth date as being 1962 mostly due to her rape that occurred on her 14th birthday. That rape has remained a defining part of Erica's history, and has remained as having happened on her 14th birthday. Kendall was conceived that night, which has made Erica 14 years older than Kendall. This is the reason that Erica's age has been directly affected by Kendall's age more than once. It was affected by Kendall's age twice, and it seems highly unlikely that it would not be affected by Kendall's age for a third time (when Alicia Minshew stepped into the role of Kendall in 2001). Some time in the early 2000s, when it was even acknowledged within the series that it was the early 2000s, and with Kendall's new birth date still in place, the writers brought up Erica's rape again; it was still stated as having been on her 14th birthday. Erica and Kendall truly first bonded as mother and daughter on the anniversary of Erica's rape. Their 14-year age difference was presented quite clearly at that time as well, if you were watching then. Thus, I say that if you still do not get why I do not see stating Erica's age as 1962 as being original research, then we really should just drop any discussion of this completely. I am not necessarily arguing to reinstate Erica's 1962 birth year somewhere in her article. I just wanted to try to explain to you my thoughts in a different way. Erica has always been defined as being 14 years older than Kendall. I completely get that this is fictional, but this is something about these two fictional characters that has not changed, just as plenty of other things about fictional characters never change. My arguing for Erica's 1962 birth year was never about being inuniverse or a fangirl on my part. It was simply about following something that has remained consistent throughout storylines. Erica's age changed; Kendall's age changed; but their ages have always remained 14 years apart.

In any case, I do try my best to stay professional on Wikipedia, and as I stated on my talk page, any hostility that took place in this debate between you and I will have no bearing on our working relationship here at Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[]

Hey there, of course I fully understand your thinking, and the fact that Erica having Kendall at 14 has always been kept intact. But I don't think you could find a reliable source for this that has "1962" in it, because it is generally understood that any kind of retcon will create discrepancies that cannot be fully resolved. The article currently says that Erica was raped at 14 and had Kendall in 1970 or before, and then it says that Kendall's birthdate was later revised to 1976. All true, and the reader understands the age difference and the change. Why the need to lock in a date of 1962, when not even the show itself has done that? I guess I haven't presented it this way yet: to avoid original research, we provide all the relevant info and let the reader figure it out/do the math; any kind of calculation or interpretation or analysis on our part is inappropriate. This is the same concept as an editor quoting from a book and then interpreting what the passage means; we can't interpret anything, we can only present the quote (or not) and then find an external source that says, "the author's use of red here is intended to represent mortality."— TAnthonyTalk 15:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[]
Thank you for explaining in what I feel is a better explanation for your not wanting Erica's birth date to be stated as 1962. I still do not get how it is original research to state 1962, though. I mean, I could easily make a reference about the show having crafted Erica as 14 years older than Kendall and display that with Kendall's current birth date, such as the instant when Kendall's age was changed to 1976 and Erica was still stated to be 14 years older than her due to Erica's rape at age 14. That is using the show itself as a reference. Using the show as a reference when dealing with non-contested information is fine. Erica's 1962 birth date is not currently contested, except by fans who laugh at the idea that she is 47. But the fact remains that if John McBain's brother's birth year was stated, with acknowledgment of the real world year, and as four years younger than John (I forget which one is actually younger), we would have John's birth year. Why is it important for the show to outright state 1962 for Erica when the facts are clear, unless changed again? Starr Manning's article goes for what is more like original research for the first reference for her age, though backed up by a second reference. I simply view Erica's 1962 age as solid as Starr's age... Of course, we all know that these ages can be changed by the series. In fact, these ages will most likely be changed due to rapid aging of their children. Kendall's children will most likely be aged to teenagers within the next six or seven years (and, really, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt by stating they will wait that long), which would rapidly age Kendall (though put her closer back to her "true" birth date). Bianca is likely to be rapidly aged as well due to rapid-aging of her children. All this would no doubt age Erica (though closer to her "true" age), if we are thinking logically. So, yes, it is not like I do not get your point about how age often means little in the daytime soap opera realm. I get it.
On a side note, TAnthony, while we are on the subject of sourcing, I have been worried about something for quite some time: The reference for Agnes Nixon's Early life section. It was given by editor Lauriedbluw on June 10, 2007, who was basically saying that they are either the daughter of Agnes Nixon's closest teacher (Eleanor Dubuission Fossick, also known as "Miss Eleanor") or that they came across that information due to having talked to that teacher. I remember I addressed that editor about his or her tweaking of the source in June 2008. That editor's addition had remained in the article as Early years and was wrongly formatted even when I first noticed it in September 2007 (somehow I had overlooked it in August 2007). When I noticed it, I cleaned it up and made it the Early life section. But I know now that I should not have (keep in mind, this was back during my first year here when I was still significantly improving as a Wikipedia editor, even though there were newer editors coming to me for advice and treating me as an administrator, as my early archives show, which may have given me a bit of an ego). I should have just left that addition out of the article. While I wanted to believe this person was being truthful about the information and still want to be believe that, and see that some parts of the story can be backed up by reliable online references, we should not simply take the word of a Wikipedian about biographical information. This is exactly what we (you and I) told an editor on my talk page about the Mandy Musgrave article, and this is not like an editor citing an article and the date of that article and us taking their word. This is, in all reality, someone's word that cannot currently be completely checked. You have edited the Agnes Nixon article a few times since its Early life addition; since I did not see you object to it, I felt "Oh, well, I suppose it's okay" even more. However, I realize that you may have not even noticed the source used or at least not paid much attention to it. That whole section should be removed. I am ashamed that I let it stay in for so long. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[]
I've only done what I'd consider "cleanup" to the Agnes Nixon article; if I ever read the "Early years" section (which I don't remember doing), I certainly didn't look at the source! Your instinct is correct, it's totally unreliable. None of it seems inflammatory, but it's certainly full of POV if we're discounting the source. It should be removed. I'm tempted to paste it on the talk page for others to dissect, and perhaps some parts can be referenced and reintroduced, but some of the Bio people seem to hate when we preserve unsupported data like that.— TAnthonyTalk 01:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[]
Yes, all I have ever really done to that article is cleanup. I will remove that section, and am for you pasting it on the talk page for dissection. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[]
Return to the user page of "TAnthony/Archive 2".