Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) |
Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) →Background section: Note. |
||
Line 247: | Line 247: | ||
::I agree that using the Malone Q & A source to support the "while transitioning Todd from a recurring character to a main character" is WP:Synthesis and should be reworded. Also, [http://web.archive.org/web/20040627065449/http://abc.go.com/daytime/onelifetolive/episodes/1994-95/19945.html the ABC.com source] does not state "$27.8"; it states "nearly 30 million"; I got into a minor dispute with an editor about that piece (I can't remember who it was), and I disputed changing the text to $27.8...since the ABC.com source does not state that. The editor who added the $27.8 bit did so because apparently that is the exact amount clarified in the storyline. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 23:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC) |
::I agree that using the Malone Q & A source to support the "while transitioning Todd from a recurring character to a main character" is WP:Synthesis and should be reworded. Also, [http://web.archive.org/web/20040627065449/http://abc.go.com/daytime/onelifetolive/episodes/1994-95/19945.html the ABC.com source] does not state "$27.8"; it states "nearly 30 million"; I got into a minor dispute with an editor about that piece (I can't remember who it was), and I disputed changing the text to $27.8...since the ABC.com source does not state that. The editor who added the $27.8 bit did so because apparently that is the exact amount clarified in the storyline. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 23:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
::Note: While I would categorize Todd as a major character before he was revealed as part of the [[Lord family]], I don't currently remember when he became a main character; there is of course a difference between a main character and recurring character. The words "main character," not "major character," are used in the aforementioned WP:Synthesis text, but it's still WP:Synthesis. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 00:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:28, 18 March 2014
Todd Manning has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Possible article improvement
This article has been in my sights for a while now, ever since Howarth brought Todd to General Hospital. I was so impressed with his performance and with the character, I followed him to the much-lamented online version of OLTL, even though I had never watched it in its previous incarnations on ABC. I would like to take this on now, even though it's with much trepidation, since I understand the protectiveness many soap fans have about their characters. Despite that, I think that this is an important article to improve, since American soap opera articles are terribly neglected here. I'm willing to be collaborative as long as it doesn't turn ugly. To that end, I have some ideas that I'd like to record here, in case someone wants to have a discussion.
One of the major things I'd like to do is get rid of the "Storylines" section. Out of the 4 soap articles listed [1], 2 are about characters, and while they have such sections, they're very limited. (Wouldn't it be cool if this was the first character FA from an American soap?) They discuss storylines in the context of other discussions, such as character development. The current version of this article, with a Storylines section, is repetitious and gets into WP:FANCRUFT. If we need to, we can fold some of the content into other sections that discuss Todd's development as a character and his impact. At the very least, I think we need to cut much of this section. I can also see some cutting of some content that may not be important, but I'd need to look at the article more closely. Please discuss and please, no attacks! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, Figureskatingfan. I've never been a fan of the Storylines section; it was added in May 2012, so it's only been there for two years. As this article's archives show, I didn't feel that a Storyline section was needed for this article because the major storyline points are already addressed in the relevant sections of the article, such as in the Character creation section. I was planning on creating a Storyline section because a few editors and readers wanted one, asking why this is the only (big) soap opera article without one, and I felt that I could use the section to address some interesting parts that other aspects of the article do not address. But I made it clear that a Storyline section for this article would be similar to the one in the WP:Featured article Pauline Fowler, where it's not simply a retelling of the story, but rather, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Contextual presentation (before the recent changes to this guideline), an inclusion of character analysis and/or critical commentary...like the article already does for some parts. But as you can see from that first diff-link I provided above, a Storyline section was added by an IP; I think that IP was Nk3play2, who edited that section soon after that IP did and would add a lot of stuff to soap opera articles as an IP instead of signing in. When I saw that Storyline section, I stated, "Moved Storylines section up. Wrong place to put it. And if it's gets out of hand, I will be removing it, per WP:PLOT." I later stated, "I don't watch Todd regularly anymore, and was never a regular viewer of General Hospital, so others will need to take care of this Storyline section, adding to it and keeping it under control." I initially had help keeping the Plot section down, as seen here and here. And the One Life to Live section is still in decent shape, while the General Hospital section is out of hand.
- Anyway, I would be fine with the entire Storyline section being removed, but I know that a few Wikipedia editors, mainly the ones that are more WP:Fancruft in nature, would object to the removal. Still, I suggest that you go ahead and be WP:Bold and remove it. As for the rest of the article, I'd rather that no major restructuring takes place; I think that the current structure, I mean the subheadings and content in those sections (minus the Storyline section) is best; however, the article could definitely use some WP:Copyediting and reference cleanup. I know how difficult the WP:Featured article process is, so I am never looking forward to that process. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- On a side note: I did notice yesterday that you created space for the article for drafting. That definitely makes it easier to see what you have in mind for the article and to work on it with you. Flyer22 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Flyer, I went ahead and moved the draft version [2], because after looking at this article a little more closely, I think it's a better and more accessible place to discuss the article. Instead of talking about possible improvements here, I suggest that we take it over there, on its talk page. It looks like this article has the potential of some collaboration, which can be fun and different for me, since I tend to work on articles alone. I intend on spending some time this afternoon looking at the prose and sources some more, and recording my thoughts and ideas over there. I suspect that there will need to be some discussion about a lot of aspects of the article, so I suggest that anyone who's interested in improving this article join me in the discussion and collaboration over there. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Christine (Figureskatingfan), I often work alone as well, though I also collaborate; it's difficult to never collaborate at Wikipedia, especially since collaborating to build a free encyclopedia is what this site is about. As should be clear from the current state of this article and its history, I know a lot about this character and care a lot about this article...so I am definitely interested in possible improvements for it. I watched this character since his debut, when I was age 10, collected a lot of material on him over the years, and therefore know everything about him, except for everything about his storylines on General Hospital and on the online version of One Life to Live (that's where your knowledge of the character definitely comes into play), so I am a good source for almost anything you need to know about him. With regard to American soap opera articles here at Wikipedia, they are not as neglected as you may think; I assume you mean neglected in quality, especially when it comes to WP:Good article status and WP:Featured article status. While the Todd Manning article was one of the first two American soap opera character articles to reach WP:Good article status (the other was the Dimitri Marick article), and was one of the several soap opera character articles on Wikipedia overall to reach that level, there have been several American soap opera character articles (all concerning The Young and the Restless) elevated to the WP:Good article status level since then (and of course a lot more non-American soap opera articles in that regard), as partly documented at Wikipedia:SOAPS#Examples of quality articles. I will see you at the draft page. Flyer22 (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- And, actually, Christine (Figureskatingfan), now that I think more about not having the discussion at this talk page, I don't think it's a better idea to have it at your Todd sandbox...since if your Todd sandbox is ever deleted instead of simply blanked, all the text documenting what went into editing the article for WP:Featured article status will only be accessible to WP:Administrators. But it's your sandbox, so... Flyer22 (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Flyer, I think you're right about where discussion should be centralized; like I said, although I enjoy collaboration, I don't get many opportunities to do it here. I will move stuff from there over here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Initial thoughts by Figureskatingfan
So far, the discussion regarding the improvement of this article has been between myself (User:Figureskatingfan) and User:Flyer22. Anyone else is welcome, of course. I think that this should be strictly collaborative, since so many potentially has a stake in this article. I also think that we should discuss any changes here, except for minor prose and copyedits, before placing them in main article space.
I'll start things off by making a list of my initial thoughts and ideas. Please discuss and share!
- Notice that when I copied the article here, I left out the "Storylines" section, as per the above discussion. I also left out the lead because I suspect it will be much different when we're done, and that we'll have to re-write it.
- At the current time, there are two FAs about soap characters: Pauline Fowler and Poppy Meadow. I think that these should be our guides, and that we should look to them for what we should and should not include here.
- As per previous discussion, I agree that we should keep the other sections intact, at least in their subject material and if there are enough reliable sources supporting them. (More about that later.)
- I think that we should go through each section and decide what should stay and what should go before we conduct a copyedit, mostly to save time and effort.
- References: This is honestly my biggest concern about this article. I think that we should dedicate an entire section to discussing them. (See below, please.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how the lead is going to look "much different"; what is currently in it (though the first paragraph is currently too stuffed and that should be remedied) is a good summary of the topic/article. If we are going to "keep the other sections intact," which I think we should (except for needed copyediting and reference fixes/cleanup), the lead shouldn't be much different. Even if the article were drastically redesigned (which I also don't feel should be done), we should begin the lead by noting who the character is and that character's personality, then note the storyline aspects, especially the significant ones, and complete the lead with why the character is notable. Flyer22 (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest that we table discussion about the lead for now. I tend to work on leads last, since leads are supposed to be a summary of the article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how the lead is going to look "much different"; what is currently in it (though the first paragraph is currently too stuffed and that should be remedied) is a good summary of the topic/article. If we are going to "keep the other sections intact," which I think we should (except for needed copyediting and reference fixes/cleanup), the lead shouldn't be much different. Even if the article were drastically redesigned (which I also don't feel should be done), we should begin the lead by noting who the character is and that character's personality, then note the storyline aspects, especially the significant ones, and complete the lead with why the character is notable. Flyer22 (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I also worry about the lead last, for the same reason.
- On a side note: With regard to splitting up my "14:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)" comment, I prefer that such splits are not done. But if you feel that you have to in order to make the discussion flow easier, it is best that you duplicate my signature so that those reading the discussion know who is commenting; I've duplicated the signature above. Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- About the Pauline Fowler and Poppy Meadow articles being our guides for this article, hmm... I can't see that unless it concerns having a Storylines section that is blended with critical commentary, like the Pauline Fowler article is (and I've mentioned the sourcing aspect below). But the Todd Manning article, like I noted in our aforementioned recent discussion, already blends storyline detail with critical commentary. Anyway, what I mean by not seeing the Pauline Fowler and Poppy Meadow articles as our guides in this case is that while all of these characters are soap opera characters, Todd Manning is a completely different type of character, one whose background aspects are contrasted by matters such as a heavy emphasis on him being a monster or a monster looking for redemption, his scar and hair, his own theme music; in fact, and I noted this at the Todd Manning talk page before, the design for the Todd Manning article is based on the WP:Featured article Jason Voorhees; Todd is more similar to that character -- having a horror aspect, makeup and theme music aspect. That's why that type of design, with extra subheadings of course, has worked well for this article. Something else I have done is generally have the sections in chronological order (meaning that the first section starts from Todd's beginning and the other sections follow his life from that point), though there are obviously some aspects that can't help but be out of chronological order. For documentation on this talk page, this is what the article looked like when it passed as a WP:Good article in 2010; somewhat different, somewhat the same as it is now. Flyer22 (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- When I first came upon this article after Howarth joined the GH cast, I was impressed by the level of criticism here, and felt inspired to help bring it further along. It really helped me get to know Todd. BTW, thanks for your patience and for bringing me up to speed by filling in some history, especially the horror aspect of this character and why we should add the Jason article to the top of the list of article models. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Glad that this article has helped you. At various soap opera sites, without the members knowing that I'm the one who edited/molded the vast majority of this article, I've often seen people state that the article helped educate them on the Todd Manning character and that it is the most comprehensive Todd Manning article they have read. Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- When I first came upon this article after Howarth joined the GH cast, I was impressed by the level of criticism here, and felt inspired to help bring it further along. It really helped me get to know Todd. BTW, thanks for your patience and for bringing me up to speed by filling in some history, especially the horror aspect of this character and why we should add the Jason article to the top of the list of article models. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Even though I used WP:Echo to ping a few editors in the Sources section below, I'll note at the WP:SOAPS talk page that this Todd sandbox discussion is going on; it might attract more soap opera editors, whether the ones I pinged below weigh in or not. Flyer22 (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I updated the talk page move over there. The more the merrier! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm fine with not splitting up discussion, whatever you prefer. As per above, one of the reasons I want to help improve this article is that it can truly be a model of what this kind of article can be. Plus, Todd is intriguing and so different from the typical soap character. (As much as I'm enjoying Howarth as Franco on GH, part of me wants Todd back, but I digress.) ;) All my rhetoric about this article being more "academic" is really my enthusiasm and wish to see this article become truly great, something I have great confidence we can make happen. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that what makes a great article by Wikipedia standards is different than what the general public thinks of as a great article. For example, I think that this article is a great and encyclopedic Todd Manning article. But is it currently great by Wikipedia standards? No. I know that, which again is one reason that I did not pursue WP:Featured article status for this article. So I understand what you mean, though I think that you, like me, are also going by what you personally consider a great article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm fine with not splitting up discussion, whatever you prefer. As per above, one of the reasons I want to help improve this article is that it can truly be a model of what this kind of article can be. Plus, Todd is intriguing and so different from the typical soap character. (As much as I'm enjoying Howarth as Franco on GH, part of me wants Todd back, but I digress.) ;) All my rhetoric about this article being more "academic" is really my enthusiasm and wish to see this article become truly great, something I have great confidence we can make happen. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I updated the talk page move over there. The more the merrier! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- About the Pauline Fowler and Poppy Meadow articles being our guides for this article, hmm... I can't see that unless it concerns having a Storylines section that is blended with critical commentary, like the Pauline Fowler article is (and I've mentioned the sourcing aspect below). But the Todd Manning article, like I noted in our aforementioned recent discussion, already blends storyline detail with critical commentary. Anyway, what I mean by not seeing the Pauline Fowler and Poppy Meadow articles as our guides in this case is that while all of these characters are soap opera characters, Todd Manning is a completely different type of character, one whose background aspects are contrasted by matters such as a heavy emphasis on him being a monster or a monster looking for redemption, his scar and hair, his own theme music; in fact, and I noted this at the Todd Manning talk page before, the design for the Todd Manning article is based on the WP:Featured article Jason Voorhees; Todd is more similar to that character -- having a horror aspect, makeup and theme music aspect. That's why that type of design, with extra subheadings of course, has worked well for this article. Something else I have done is generally have the sections in chronological order (meaning that the first section starts from Todd's beginning and the other sections follow his life from that point), though there are obviously some aspects that can't help but be out of chronological order. For documentation on this talk page, this is what the article looked like when it passed as a WP:Good article in 2010; somewhat different, somewhat the same as it is now. Flyer22 (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Sources
- Many assertions made in this article are supported by incomplete references. For example, ref 66 reads, "Father Knows (Her) Best". Soap Opera Digest. Late 2003." Also, refs 31-15 are all quotes by Todd to different characters in specific episodes, which strike me as dependent upon the memory of the editor who added it.
- Of course, we need to discuss what is "reliable" for a soap article. In my experience, the criteria for reliability is much lower for these types of articles, which by necessity depends upon nontraditional sources. These sources include, but aren't limited to: trade publications like Soap Opera Digest; self-published sources--websites such as ABC.com, soap opera sites like SoapCentral, and blogs. They could also include user-generated sites like About.com. Unlike many types of articles, I also think that we could use YouTube clips, if they exist. (See below for more about this.) That being said, I'm sure that we'd be able to find more reliable and scholarly articles and books. (I ordered the Hayward book, which is unfortunately the only strictly reliable source here.) One of the first things I want to do is to do a literature review, which I can do easily since I have access to a university library.
- I recommend that we not depend so heavily upon episodes, unless they either appear on YouTube or if they've been transcribed somewhere. (This is probably where we'd depend upon the expertise of editors like User:Flyer22, who are more familiar with OLTL.) One of the biggest dangers with TV shows is that editors want to depend upon their memory; now, although soap fans have the best memories of any fanbase, this is too close to WP:OR, and should be avoided.
- I think it's crucial that for web-based sources, they need to be accessible. That means that if we refer to a specific episode, we need to be able to include it.
- We should do our best to follow WP policies and guidelines regarding reliability, as per WP:PROVEIT, which states that if we can't find a source that supports any and all assertions made in this article, we should remove them.
I strongly believe that what makes a good article are good sources, even for topics like soap operas. I also believe that it's possible to discuss topics like soaps in a scholarly manner, within the limitations that this topic provides us. Others have done it, and I'd like this article to be as scholarly as possible. Should be fun, right? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hello again, Figureskatingfan. Okay, let's discuss sources: Soap Opera Digest and American Broadcasting Company.com (ABC.com) are not unreliable sources. ABC.com is not a self-published source; it is a WP:Primary source. SoapCentral.com, via various discussions about that site, including at WP:SOAPS, one or two times at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, and at various American soap opera character articles, has only been deemed reliable for actor biography (not character biography), news and exclusive interview information (an interview that the soap opera actor specifically did with the site). SoapCentral.com is one of the main soap opera sources for American soap operas, if not the main one...but, per the past discussions I mentioned, I agree that we generally should not rely on that source. Soap opera magazine sources, such as Soap Opera Digest, however, are the sources that cover most of the character information about soap opera characters; those are the sources where most of the WP:Real word information -- casting information, development, etc. are going to come from for American soap operas. Not only do I know this from having searched Google Books and Google Scholar for sources for different soap opera characters, including for Todd Manning, this has been expressed on Wikipedia in countless discussions about soap opera sources. Generally, there are not a lot of non-WP:Primary sources for American soap opera characters; this is because American soap opera characters are generally not covered to the same mainstream degree as non-American soap opera characters, such as British soap operas EastEnders and Hollyoaks, which British soap opera editors such as Raintheone would tell you. Generally, an American soap opera character has to be a character such as Erica Kane, Victor Newman or Todd Manning to get mainstream (wider) coverage or significant mainstream (wider) coverage. Take a look at the WP:Good article Victor Newman; even with all the mainstream attention he has received, you can see that a significant number of sources in that article are soap opera sources, such as Soap Opera Digest, and that SoapCentral.com sources are included; there are not many scholarly sources there. There also are not many scholarly sources in the Pauline Fowler and Poppy Meadow articles, articles that you want to be our guides for the Todd Manning article; the vast majority of sources in the Pauline Fowler article, and several in the Poppy Meadow article, are from BBC News, and this is because these two soap operas are BBC soap operas and most of the information about those characters come from that site, similar to what I stated about ABC.com (including ABC News) and Soap Opera Digest with regard to American soap operas. About.com has been the subject of discussion at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard as well, more than once, and the general sentiment is that it can be a WP:Reliable source; I've only used it in this article a few times and specifically for commentary from soap opera experts and/or critics, which is allowed.
- For a reference like "Father Knows (Her) Best". Soap Opera Digest. Late 2003.", that is a reliable source, but it is missing a few aspects; those aspects are the author, month (or full date) and the page number(s), and this is because I didn't have them. I think I got that source from Trevor St. John's official website, which included that entry but not all of the details. For other sources that are like that, it's a similar reason -- I didn't have the author name, or the page number, etc. I definitely feel that those references should be completed. But it would be a huge mistake to remove information from this article simply because the references supporting the information are not completed; there are citation tags, such as Template:Page needed, especially for such instances. And not having the complete reference for some sources is one reason I never got around to elevating this article from WP:Good article status to WP:Featured article status. Citing episodes for plot information, as I have done in some cases for this article, is perfectly acceptable, which editors at WP:TV would attest to and as is shown at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Film, TV, or video recordings. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, web-based sources don't need to be readily accessible. But all of the web-sources in this article are readily accessible unless they are WP:Dead links, or unless you are talking about a source such as "Male Soap Opera Stars". Phil Donahue Show. 1994-05-17."; that type of source is fine as well and there is an appropriate WP:Citation template that can be included for it. WP:Citing sources also shows different acceptable ways to cite, though, per WP:CITEVAR, citing styles should be consistent. The only blogs I included in this article are ones that pass WP:Reliable sources because they are from an expert in his or her relevant field -- a professional soap opera critic; those blogs are this one and this one, and the sources weren't originally from mediabizbloggers.com; I had to update them back in 2012, as seen here, because the location changed. Per WP:NEWSBLOG, news blogs can also be reliable. In the case of two sources that can be considered very poor, this one (magnifmalonian.tripod.com) and this one (geocities.com/~onelifer/nichtern1.html), I included them because they provide very important information and are exclusive interviews, and, because they are exclusive interviews, they are not poor in that regard; keep in mind that the Internet, and the way that writers, producers, etc. gave interviews, was very different in the mid to late 1990s. For the quotes by Todd that I included, I included those only after the line is supported by a WP:Reliable source; see where those sources begin at reference 43? I included them as WP:Primary sources to showcase Todd's sense of humor, but I've felt for years now that they should be removed...and I don't have a problem with them being removed. Just like I agreed with you at the Todd Manning talk page to remove the Storylines section. I don't add article content to Wikipedia simply based on memory, unless it's the Plot section, which, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Contextual presentation, is fine to do.
- To sum up, with sources such as TV Guide, etc., the Jennifer Hayward book is not the only "strictly reliable source" in the article; nor is it the only scholarly source in the article. You are setting an unrealistic bar if you are expecting the vast majority of sources for the Todd Manning article to come from scholarly sources, unless you are expecting to cut out the vast majority of information from this article just to have the article mostly consist of scholarly sources. But in that case, all of those sources would be about Todd Manning being a rapist and/or his 1993 rape case, considering that is what all scholarly sources (at least the ones I've come across so far) focus on with regard to Todd Manning. I think it would be good if you read over past discussions about the type of sourcing that is acceptable for soap opera articles and the issues soap opera editors often face regarding sourcing; for some of those discussions, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 2#SoapCentral.com, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 4#Sources for soap articles and User talk:Flyer22/Archive 9#Sources for Supercouples. If you can replace some of the sources with better sources, then, by all means, feel free to do so. But a great deal of important information in this article would be lost if we settled for your sourcing standards in this case. Besides Raintheone, some other non-WP:Fancruft editors to invite to this discussion are TAnthony, Arre 9 and Livelikemusic (invited via WP:Echo). Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Again, thanks for taking all this time bringing me up to speed about how sources are used in soap opera articles. Perhaps I should've said that as an editor, I believe in using nontraditional sources to ensure that an article is comprehensive. I've found that for these articles, if you make a strong enough case for the necessary of using them at FAC, the reviewers are flexible enough to allow them. I should've also said that we need to do our best to find the best sources to support everything here. We may need to do some hunting to ensure that our sources are complete, and you're a good resource for that. In the meantime, I'll do some more research, about how soap opera articles are written and supported, and look at some of the current sources. I think we should remove the Storylines section, but wait a couple of days for others to chime in, if they choose to do so. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I intend to do what I can to fill out the incomplete references, if you don't somehow beat me to it first. As for looking for sources or better sources, in addition to looking on Google Books and in libraries, there are some fansites that you can look at for Todd Manning information; these sites have magazine articles, interviews, etc., sometimes scans of the magazine that visually validate that these sources exist. One such source, the best Roger Howarth fansite out there, is The RH Factor. Take a look at its press section that has good material on Howarth as Todd (some of that is already in the Todd Manning Wikipedia article). Looking to fansites for St. John's portrayal of Todd can also be beneficial. The trevorstjohn.com (official St. John) site I mentioned above used to have an Interviews section that included interviews about Todd, but it doesn't seem to anymore.
- Again, thanks for taking all this time bringing me up to speed about how sources are used in soap opera articles. Perhaps I should've said that as an editor, I believe in using nontraditional sources to ensure that an article is comprehensive. I've found that for these articles, if you make a strong enough case for the necessary of using them at FAC, the reviewers are flexible enough to allow them. I should've also said that we need to do our best to find the best sources to support everything here. We may need to do some hunting to ensure that our sources are complete, and you're a good resource for that. In the meantime, I'll do some more research, about how soap opera articles are written and supported, and look at some of the current sources. I think we should remove the Storylines section, but wait a couple of days for others to chime in, if they choose to do so. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- On the topic of reference naming (WP:REFNAME), I see you changed a reference name in this case. At the time that I brought this article to WP:GA status, I was using a different refname style than I do now. Now I use the author's last name when I edit Wikipedia articles, if the author is named in the source. And if I use the same author more than once for different sources, then I'll amend that by placing a 2 (as in Branco2) and moving up the number ladder if need be so that two or more different sources don't have the same refname and, for example, the second source is not therefore obscured. I'd be fine using your reference style if you prefer, though your style can make the source less easy to identify when seeing only the refname at a part of the article. Which refname style do you prefer we use? Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- You'll see that I started working on the prose and references yesterday. I figure that if I can a question about the incomplete refs, I can ask. Thanks for the websites; I'll take a look at them soon and see if we can fill anything with the news items on RH's page. Re: source format: for the articles I work on alone, I prefer to write in the sources by hand, but if I anticipate that other editors will participate, I use the citation templates. Lately, I've been using VisualEditor, which I've found to be a good tool for inserting templates. The dates need to be standardized; any format is fine, as long as it's consistent, and I've learned that the ddmmyyyy format is more accepted. If I make an error, please correct it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I prefer citation templates, which is mostly evident by the Todd Manning Wikipedia article. So, yes, I would rather we stick with that and conform any reference not sticking to that style. But you still didn't answer the rename query. I would rather that we be consistent in that as well -- either going by the aforementioned style you displayed in the Todd sandbox or using the author name (if there is an author name available) or shortened title name. Also, for instances like this, which doesn't really count as a reference by Wikipedia standards, I suggest we use Template:Note. That instance isn't needed, though, since it has a WP:Reliable source supporting it. And neither is this one, which is WP:Editorializing/WP:Synthesis; I'd meant to support that faulty editing of mine with a WP:Reliable source, but I never got around to doing that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Those magazine sources are concerning. There should be a reasonable time scale in place to sort the problem. If it cannot be met - the information should be removed. Missing from most are the date of issue, page number, author, reporter and issue number. I have purchased many magazines to use as sources. I have used online magazine scans but only if the information was supplied. I would not have considered using them if not.Rain the 1 15:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- The information should be removed because, for example, the sources are missing the author name or page number? I can't agree, per above; I reiterate that we have Template:Page needed, etc. in cases such as those. And it's very common for sources on Wikipedia to be missing the author name and/or page number or some other aspect, similar to reference styles that only give the author name and page number...as is the case with the reference style in the WP:Featured Lesbian article (though it does have the References section below that to sort out what is being cited). The content in the Todd Manning case is verifiable, even if not every source has all components appended to it. WP:Preserve is policy. Flyer22 (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- You obviously will not agree. You added the information. WP:V is one the three core policies. It needs to be sorted. There are magazines available on eBay. This is supposed to be good article content. If it were at review in 2014 - it just would not cut. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.Rain the 1 15:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't always agree with keeping things because I added them, as is clear from this talk page and in many other discussions on Wikipedia; it's common for me to see the error of my ways and remove or tweak something I added to a Wikipedia article. But in this case? No, I don't "know it"; I don't because I see differently at WP:Good and WP:Featured article processes often, with various different citation styles, and these include WP:BLPs (where the strictest of reviewers are because Wikipedia takes WP:BLPs very seriously, more seriously than any other type of article). And the author name or page number, for example, is not always required, especially if the source does not show the author's name; this more so applies to WP:Good article content, however. I already noted here that sourcing for WP:Featured article content is taken much more seriously, generally anyway. And I already noted above: "I intend to do what I can to fill out the incomplete references." Flyer22 (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- The other sources used appear good. It is just the incomplete ones I take issue with. You said that you will sort it. That is good enough for me. Sorry if I sound harsh though. I do not intend to. But you know I want soap opera articles to amongst the best and most reliable on Wikipedia.Rain the 1 16:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest that we go meticulously go through this article and come to a consensus about the sources. I have no problem with using off-line sources; for some articles, you have to in order to be comprehensive. But yes, they have to be complete. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Some of the sources, such this and this online Soap Opera Digest source which are reporting excerpts from a magazine issue, don't provide an author. As seen in that first diff-link, sometimes they don't provide the title of the piece in the magazine. Does that mean that these sources should be discarded? I don't think so. I feel the same about print sources in the article; it's not as though these references don't exist, and WP:SOURCEACCESS makes clear that we should not reject sources simply because they are not easily accessible. There is enough detail for most of the print magazine references in this article...that the references are accessible; often, all it takes is the name of the issue and/or title of the article piece in the magazine for me to access a source. But accessing soap opera magazine sources is a lot harder, and this may especially be the case for American soap operas. I reiterate that I will do what I can to remedy the incomplete references, but it should not be surprising if I object to valuable information being removed from this article because the author's name or the date (partial or full) is missing, or in the case of some other "missing one or two aspects" instance. At least for the online sources there is visual accessible/assessable proof, unless it's a WP:Dead link that is forever lost and cannot be accessed via Internet Archive. Flyer22 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest that we go meticulously go through this article and come to a consensus about the sources. I have no problem with using off-line sources; for some articles, you have to in order to be comprehensive. But yes, they have to be complete. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- The other sources used appear good. It is just the incomplete ones I take issue with. You said that you will sort it. That is good enough for me. Sorry if I sound harsh though. I do not intend to. But you know I want soap opera articles to amongst the best and most reliable on Wikipedia.Rain the 1 16:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't always agree with keeping things because I added them, as is clear from this talk page and in many other discussions on Wikipedia; it's common for me to see the error of my ways and remove or tweak something I added to a Wikipedia article. But in this case? No, I don't "know it"; I don't because I see differently at WP:Good and WP:Featured article processes often, with various different citation styles, and these include WP:BLPs (where the strictest of reviewers are because Wikipedia takes WP:BLPs very seriously, more seriously than any other type of article). And the author name or page number, for example, is not always required, especially if the source does not show the author's name; this more so applies to WP:Good article content, however. I already noted here that sourcing for WP:Featured article content is taken much more seriously, generally anyway. And I already noted above: "I intend to do what I can to fill out the incomplete references." Flyer22 (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Images
Figureskatingfan, when noticing that the "Roger Howarth—The Other Side of Evil" reference is missing from the Todd sandbox (and that only its refname is there), I noticed that the images are not in the sandbox; I noticed because that source was applied to an image caption. Did you remove the images to make the sandbox editing easier, are you considering on removing one or more images, or were you thinking that the changes to the article might call for the images to be placed in different spots? If "yes" to removing the images or different placement for them, I can't state that I agree that any of the images should be removed or that they are better placed at different spots in the article. If you look at the image placements, they are carefully placed in the most relevant parts, and I think they add to readers' understanding of those topics. That stated, the St. John image with the caption commenting on how he was initially required to keep his hair shoulder length to resemble Todd could be argued as redundant to the infobox image of St. John. I would state that the infobox image of St. John is not needed, but since he portrayed Todd for several years, it is probably best to keep that image up there so that readers immediately see what St. John/the other Todd looks like. Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, I've been meaning to change the Todd (St. John) execution image; this is because that small image barely shows anything -- his expression can barely be made out and there is barely any indication of what is happening to him, which certainly does not show the horror of "Todd" being put to death. We should have a better image of that execution, which is well discussed in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I cut the images when I created the draft space because admins don't like images in user space. We can discuss what images are appropriate as you've started to do below. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- This article has too many non-free images. It needs to be cut down to the two infobox images.Rain the 1 15:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Raintheone, I disagree. If it had too many, it would not have passed the WP:Good article process; and that was passed by one of the strictest reviewers Wikipedia has had. The non-infobox images, which are
onlythreefourfive, are used to aid critical commentary. Per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images; the image passes "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)." and "Images with iconic status or historical importance: Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance." Todd's scar is not illustrated anywhere else in the article and is an iconic aspect of the character, with substantial critical commentary in the article about it (not just in the Signature scar and hair section, but in the Reception and impact section as well). And the image of Todd's parrot aids in seeing what that parrot, which was a big part of Todd's life and has substantial critical commentary about it in the article as well, looks like. Like I stated above, however, the "shoulder length [hair] to resemble Todd" image could be argued as redundant; so I can see that one being validly removed. Flyer22 (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Raintheone, I disagree. If it had too many, it would not have passed the WP:Good article process; and that was passed by one of the strictest reviewers Wikipedia has had. The non-infobox images, which are
- The criteria I cited above applies to today's WP:Good article and WP:Featured article standards. And I did not state that there are any iconic images in this article. I stated that there is an icon topic -- Todd's scar. And that the topic is iconic is well supported by the sources in this article discussing that topic. And even if were one to state that it's not an iconic topic, it is a very significant/symbolic aspect of Todd Manning that should be visually demonstrated in this article (in other words, it has historical importance); you arguing against that is surprising, even if you are not too familiar with this character and the importance of that scar. And parrots look different; either way, the inclusion of that parrot image passes the image criteria above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am also open to not having any execution image. So there are only two non-infobox images that I think should stay. Flyer22 (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Images are a big issue here, and potentially contentious. I know from working on other articles about TV shows that it can be difficult to find free and appropriate ones. Can we table this discussion for the time being, until we're further along in the improvement process? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I see that I overlooked another image again -- the "Salvation Army-like" clothing style image. Now I can see why Raintheone feels that there are too many non-free images in the Todd Manning article. There are five non-free, non-infobox images. I'm open to removing all of those except the scar and parrot images (just two). Sure, we can shelve this discussion for now, and I guessed that you would want to do that. But I don't at all see how it's debatable that the scar image should stay; and I'm speaking from experience on these type of images. It's no more discardable than the first non-free image in the Concept and creation section of the Jason Voorhees article, which is the section I based the Signature scar and hair section on (well, that section and the rest of the Character creation section in the Todd Manning article). I'd argue that the Todd scar image is actually more significant to this article than that Jason one is to the Jason Voorhees article. But, yes, I have no problem with focusing on other aspects of the article for now. Flyer22 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Images are a big issue here, and potentially contentious. I know from working on other articles about TV shows that it can be difficult to find free and appropriate ones. Can we table this discussion for the time being, until we're further along in the improvement process? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am also open to not having any execution image. So there are only two non-infobox images that I think should stay. Flyer22 (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Background section
- Do we have any more information about the Branco TV Guide source (ref 1 on the draft)? If there's a scan available, it'd be great to put eyes on it.
- Hayward ref: Currently, this ref isn't specific enough. It needs to be broken up into specific pages, and then the book needs to be placed in a "Works cited" section. (I have the book ordered from Amazon, so I can work on this when it arrives.)
- I don't really care for the Malone Q&A/Tripod website, since it's basically a fan site, but I'm going on the record that I'm fine with keeping it for comprehensiveness sake. I'll look for other sources that support the content. I wonder if instead of putting the note before the citation, that we place it in parenthesis after the "at" parameter, like this: " "Malone on Daytime TV, One Life to Live, and Another World" (exclusive interview by Malone to Magnificently Malone website)".
- Speaking of, I like the long Malone quote, since it's more eloquent than any paraphrase would ever be, but I'm not sure reviewers will. I'm okay with keeping it, but wanted to ask what others felt about perhaps putting it in a quotebox?
- Malone originally scripted Todd as a serial rapist. During the 1993 rape storyline, it is "Todd canon" he raped character Carol Swift a year or two before raping Marty, and there are hints in the series he raped other young women before Carol. I was able to find this interview, on a RH fansite, but it would be nice if we could get the complete citation. I also reworded these two sentences; let me know if it's okay. I also would like to have more information about the ref, although I did find it on the RH website. I also found this clip [3]; what do you think about including it in a note?
- Is there any more info about ref5?
- I think we should remove the ref6 note, unless it's actually supported by the 23 October 2008 episode. Actually, I was able to find the clip [4], and perused it, but wasn't able to find any dialogue to support the statement that Todd was 20 years old. (Who is the blonde sitting in the bed with him?) If we can't find anything, we may need to remove the phrase; it's not all that important, anyway.
- The following statement, about the SORASing of Todd's children, should really be supported as well, unless we decide that it's a non-contentious and self-obvious claim. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- The "Sexy Beast" Nelson Branco TV Guide source you are referring to used to be an online source; this is the URL that used to exist for it. I can't find it anywhere on Internet Archive, and Internet Archive says it's on the web, but not from what I see...so it must be referring to the altered URL that does not go to the Sexy Beast article.
- The Jennifer Hayward reference: While I'm not a fan of duplicating a source just to cite specific page numbers, I understand the validity in doing that and that it is often done for WP:Featured articles, so I don't mind you doing it for this article.
- As seen here and here, I don't care for using Tripod as a source either, but, like I stated in the Sources section above, those are exclusive interviews; it can't be helped that Malone did those interviews with that site. Those interviews can't be cited without us using that source unless a WP:Reliable site has reproduced one or more portions of the interviews. Having looked at the general portion of the magnifmalonian site before, it doesn't seem that it was always located at Tripod. As for stressing in the reference that those interviews are exclusive interviews, I don't care how it's done...as long as it's viewable when a person hovers over and/or clicks on the number portion of the reference. Also, we currently have a duplicate version of that source in the article. Unless we are pointing to different sections of that source, the fact that there is a duplicate needs to be remedied.
- I obviously like the long Malone quote as well. I argued to keep it before in a WP:Good article review for this article and I would in a WP:Featured article review for this article. Because of its length, I don't think it would look as good in a quotebox. And it would not flow as well after the "Malone felt he could not take full credit for the development of the character from Marty Saybrooke's gang rapist to what the character later became, and also noted Howarth's impact:" line unless we were to simply have a "Malone on Howarth's impact" piece as part of who the quote is from. Or removed the line as redundant.
- The "Malone originally scripted Todd as a serial rapist" bit: I'm not sure what you mean by "complete citation"; that citation is complete; it has the author name, title of the article, exact date and publication. As for using The RH Factor URL for it, I'm not keen on using URL links from fansites and especially not in the case where the fan re-typed the article instead of showcasing a scan of it; this is because in the case of the former, an editor can state that the retype is unreliable (no matter that retyping happens anyway when a Wikipedia editor relays what a print source states, without the copy-and-paste option), and, in the case of the latter, they can argue that it is a WP:Copyright violation. I've only come across the WP:Copyright violation aspect when the article is being hosted on a site like Photobucket or TinyPic; for example, as seen here and here at the Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery article. One example of there being a discrepancy between what a magazine states and what a person types up from that magazine is found when comparing this online Soap Opera Digest piece to this The RH Factor retype (the same URL link you added to the Todd sandbox). The Soap Opera Digest source states, "People have come up to me and said, 'My 7-year-old loves you.' What do I say to that? I'm not going to tell them, 'Don't let your 7-year-old watch TV.' But I have to say, it's disturbing." And the The RH Factor retype states, "People have come up to me and said, 'My 7-year-old loves you.' What do I say to that? 'Don't let your 7-year-old watch TV.' But I have to say, it's disturbing." It's a slight discrepancy, there near the end, and it makes one wonder which version is more accurate (whether the online magazine version is slightly wrong or whether the fan who did the retype is), but I'm sure that the vast majority of people would be willing to bet on the online magazine version being more accurate. As for using YouTube as a source; as you likely know, that generally is not allowed, except for cases where it's the official YouTube channel with regard to the material or is being used, for example, to source information about an Internet celebrity, such as Chris Crocker or Jenna Marbles; WP:USERGENERATED and WP:YOUTUBE address YouTube sourcing. YouTube is commonly accepted as an addition to the External links section, though, per WP:External links. I'm not sure about it being cited in a note, but I caution against doing that. Thanks for that YouTube link, by the way; I don't remember that scene, and it's always fun for me to watch vintage Todd storylines.
- The "'Special Section: Where would soaps be without the bad boys and vixens that cause turmoil?'. Soap Opera Digest. 31 July 2001. p. 38." reference: What more are you looking for with regard to it? It's a complete citation; I don't think an author was attached to that piece. If you look inside of American some soap opera magazines, you will see that some pages have commentary, such as in a box, without it being attributed to a specific author (for example, this might be a case of that, unless those are the authors there placed vertically in small print along the left side); this aspect goes back to my "19:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)" comment in the Sources section above. There is not any other information in that source that is needed for the Wikipedia Todd Manning article. It's basically a brief recap of who Todd is and why fans love him. It's somewhere under the stacks of books in my room; I could refresh my memory on it this Wednesday when I'm finally back in my own home instead of in this apartment I'm currently in due to a house fire I had a few months back.
- Yes, this reference is supported by the actual episode; that's why it describes that portion of the episode and is why I put it beside the "but is later stated to have been 20 at the time of Marty's rape" text. This is a case where we should either use Template:Cite episode or Template:Note. I think we should keep it because it shows one of the age retcons. Regarding the YouTube clip you noted, the age 20 factor is confirmed at 17:26/17:27; though "Todd" is speaking of his consensual encounter with her in that moment, he was the same age when he raped her (unless we are to believe he was one age going on another). And the blond woman in the clip is none other than Marty Saybrooke (during the "re-rape" storyline); you didn't recognize her, I assume.
- The statement about the SORASing (rapid aging) of Todd's children (and therefore prematurely aging Todd) is a plot matter, supported by his children's Wikipedia articles, Starr Manning and Danielle Manning (especially the Danielle Manning article) and therefore, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Contextual presentation, the plot serves as the source. Starr is one of the few soap opera children who were allowed to naturally grow up onscreen, however; there was a bit of SORASing in the beginning, but it's difficult to state if it occurred after that, other than the timeline jump for the online version of One Life to Live.
- On a side note: I see here and here, that you use British style for dates and delink the publications within the reference templates. I use American style and prefer that the publications are linked within the reference templates. Wikipedia bots or editors with script tools are always changing the date style to British style, however; so when I use American style in this article, it will be changed eventually. Do you mind linking the publications in references? I feel that only the publications that have Wikipedia articles should be linked, however, to avoid WP:Red link unless a red link is clearly appropriate. Flyer22 (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Responses first, and then I'll continue with going through this section. I can see this is going to be very long, which is probably necessary. I suggest that as things are resolved, we use collapsible tables to make things more manageable.
I agree that we should keep the long Malone quote. If we were to put it in a quotebox, we'd have to re-word the paragraph, but I agree that it looks better as is.
Re: complete citations: I'm just asking for confirmation that they're complete because I want to be thorough. I understand that not all articles will have an author attached to it. Ref1, for example, doesn't have page numbers; if you have them, please add them to the ref. If you don't have access to them, we'll just see what we can get away with, or try to find other sources that support it. When I ask for complete citations in the future, just confirm it one way or the other, please. (I'm very sorry about your house fire! Please, if that gets in the way of what I ask, tell me and we'll just include what we can.)
Re: fan sites. I'd much rather depend upon the actual source than an on-line version typed in by a fan. If a source isn't accessible on-line, that's often acceptable. If you have access to the source, I think it's better to use it and not a fan site like the RH Factor.
Using YouTube clips: I agree that we should use them very sparingly. In the Carol Swift case, I think that we should use it because it supports an important claim--that Todd was a serial rapist. I wouldn't use the episode from 2008, since it's just a throw-away line and not all that important. I think that we should go through possible clips to use as they come up. (Wow, why would you lay in bed with someone who raped you in the past, even if he does look significantly different? Don't bother explaining; I know it's a soap and that there's some storytelling reason for it. Remember, I've seen relatively very little of OLTL, so no, I'm not going to recognize all the characters. I also know that we're gonna go off in tangents from time to time, since that's what makes this fun!)
SORASing: I think that we don't need to support that statement, since it is obvious from Todd's bio. The British dating style seems to be the practice on most of Wikipedia, so I agree about keeping. Personally, I don't like to link things in reference sections, but if I do, I link the first time they appear in the section, or if it's linked in the article, I don't link it in the references. I promise to take care of this when we're further along. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, let's use collapsible tables and/or subsection headings (the generic "Section break" heading).
- Okay, agreed on the Malone quote.
- Thanks for explaining about the citations. Yes, like I stated, those are complete ones; we have to worry about the incomplete ones, of course. The Sexy Beast article (currently ref 1) didn't have page numbers when it was online. I think there was talk among soap opera fans about it being transferred to print, but I'm not sure. Some of what was seen in that source is in the Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines article, though. You want me to simply confirm one way or the other whether the citation is complete? Understood. I will if I think I'm sure on that matter. Thanks for the condolences about the fire; it was a grease fire and it mostly got my kitchen and a little piece of the roof of my living room. But there was smoke damage and extensive water damage.
- Like you, I'd much rather depend upon the actual source than an online version typed up by a fan; that's why I did not use any of The RH Factor URL links to support the content in this article; I simply relied on the print version as it is, knowing that editors will either have to trust that I'm citing an actual source or not trust it...but that using sources without URLs is perfectly acceptable. I don't think that there are any official (as in from the publications) online versions of these magazine sources, except for the excerpts from Soap Opera Digest.
- Using YouTube and the October 23, 2008 age 20 commentary: Hmm, with regard to the YouTube note you added, I'm still not convinced that we should cite it. And not to mention...once a YouTube link goes dead because the video was deleted, it can't be replaced by a trip to an Internet archive, such as Internet Archive. But then again, you are experienced with getting articles to WP:Featured article status and we both know that we can always sort such a matter out in the WP:Featured article review if it comes up there. With regard to the age 20 commentary, I'd still rather that we keep it, especially since it sometimes seems that Todd was in his early 20s when he raped Marty and fans sometimes wonder about it, but I'm not too opposed to you having removed it. As for why would Marty lay in bed with someone who raped her in the past, even if he does look significantly different, I know that you stated "[d]on't bother explaining," but the explanation is in the Todd Manning article and extensively in the Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines article; she had amnesia.
- Linking: The reason that I prefer that the publications be linked in the references instead of not being linked in the references is so that access information about the publication (what type of publication it is, how reliable it is, etc.) is right there for the reader to explore along with, for example, the URL link to the source. Flyer22 (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- On a side note: There may be some days where it takes me more than a day to respond; if so, this will usually be because, though I may be active reverting vandalism or other unconstructive edits, I am often intermittently doing non-Wikipedia online work, and pulling together non-Wikipedia online work, and there are other Wikipedia articles I may devote myself to intermittently. Flyer22 (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- You can see that I already have done some cleaning up; I'll continue as we go along. I also went ahead and cleaned up the "RH Factor" ref; if you can find the page number at some point, that would be great. Re: the YouTube clip: let's go ahead and see if we can get away with it. You know the old saying: It's easier to ask for forgiveness instead of for permission. Perhaps we can find a better source for the 20-year-old comment; I'll look for it. I'd still like to hold off on the source linking, if you don't mind.
- Wow, I just had a look at the Rape Storylines article; hmm, another article with some potential. Now, don't you worry; I'm sure that I'll be so burned out after this one that I won't want to touch another OLTL article for a while. I too have my fingers in several things at once, including some pending articles at FAC and GAC. This week, I'm on Spring Break, so I have time to play with this article, and there may come a time when I get busy and have to take a break. I anticipate this taking months. And one more thing: amnesia, of course! I should've guessed! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. And source linking? You mean linking the publications? And, yes, that article has potential and needs cleanup and tweaks. After such work, it could definitely reach WP:Good article status. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yah, sorry, you're right about linking the publications. Hmm... (about the Rape article, although I have other goals to accomplish here first.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. And source linking? You mean linking the publications? And, yes, that article has potential and needs cleanup and tweaks. After such work, it could definitely reach WP:Good article status. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Going on and finishing off this section: I have some problems with the next two paragraphs. For example, I hope that ref 1 supports the first 2 sentences in the 1st paragraph, since refs 3 and refs 6 do not. Well ref 3 supports the assertion that Todd is Tina and Viki's brother, and ref 6 supports his birth date, but it reads like the "Manning" oversight and the writers making Todd a part of the Lord family are connected, which breaks WP:SYN. I think you're making a big leap from Todd becoming a Lord to it being how he transitioned to a major character, since it seemed that he already was one. All Malone says it that it gave them "huge story". I was going to complain that the last 2 sentences in the 1st paragraph are unsupported and should be, but then I see that it's supported by what's now ref 8 (the ABC.com ref). I'd like to see this re-written; I'm sure there are plenty of sources out there about Todd's family background. Let me do some research and see what I can come up with. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I was going to state that "Except for 'ref 1,' I'm not clear on how you are naming the references for those two paragraphs," but now I see that you were looking at your Todd sandbox and I was looking at the actual article. Yes, the "Shame and Prejudice: Mishandling sin on ‘OLTL’" reference supports the following sentences: "Malone gave the character the last name Manning without knowing Victor Lord's mistress was named Irene Manning. This oversight allowed the writers to later reveal Todd as Tina and Victoria Lord's brother." I was certain that the Malone Q & A source supports that line as well; in fact, I just rechecked it by skimming over it a few times earlier the previous hour to see that I'm not mistaken. And the reason I'm confused as to the Malone Q & A source not supporting that line is that I think I had that source supporting that line before I saw it confirmed by the Shame and Prejudice: Mishandling sin on ‘OLTL’ source and was happy to acquire a better source (by Wikipedia standards) to support it; I'll have to look into the edit history and see because I don't know what happened there, whether I mixed up a source or what (accidentally mixing up sources on Wikipedia has certainly happened to me before, a few times, but I still currently can't get over the Malone Q & A source not supporting that piece). And, no, the "Shame and Prejudice" source does not have page numbers; at least its online version did not, which used to be located at this URL; A Google search shows the places that this URL used to exist (likely not all of the places), but also that it no longer exists online.
- I'm sure that I did not add the "born on January 2, 1970." part, which the edit history shows. I don't remember who added that piece (would have to check the edit history), but it's clear to me that the person who did also added this SoapCentral.com source to support the birth date part of the line.
- I agree that using the Malone Q & A source to support the "while transitioning Todd from a recurring character to a main character" is WP:Synthesis and should be reworded. Also, the ABC.com source does not state "$27.8"; it states "nearly 30 million"; I got into a minor dispute with an editor about that piece (I can't remember who it was), and I disputed changing the text to $27.8...since the ABC.com source does not state that. The editor who added the $27.8 bit did so because apparently that is the exact amount clarified in the storyline. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: While I would categorize Todd as a major character before he was revealed as part of the Lord family, I don't currently remember when he became a main character; there is of course a difference between a main character and recurring character. The words "main character," not "major character," are used in the aforementioned WP:Synthesis text, but it's still WP:Synthesis. Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)