Talk:Theresa Donovan

Merge?

This character isn't notable enough for an article. Should be merged into the minor character page.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There is more than enough sources claiming her notability. There are lots of other soap pages with less sourcing that should be redirected before Theresa's article. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There are about 13 real sources and they all say the same thing. There is no established notability beyond the casting. The character had a minor role, and has only recently become a larger presence on the canvass. Caringtype1 (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not each source states the same thing, it's still credited enough. There are other pages, such as Pete Cortlandt, a page you support, that should be redirected to due no real world context or support other than one source. Theresa has been known to the series for decades, and has been proven notable in its sourcing. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Half your argument is basically "well other pages are worse", which isn't a defense. The character has been known as a very minor child character, and has never affected notable storylines, at least not yet. The only real world notability is that the role was cast with known actress, which is what the sources say. All the (relevant) sources repeat each other, and could very easily be summed up on the Minor Characters page.Caringtype1 (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I disgaree. And the fact you're ignoring a fact I pointed out merely shows cause that you're not even caring other than to just re-direct a page that has real-world context and notable sourcing that dates decades. The page should remain in tact, especially until others have discussed. As such, other pages with characters with no ties to canvas or history have been deemed notable and given the chance to remain. This one should as well. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd still like to know what other editors (who aren't the primary author of the article) have to say. I'll pace a merge proposal template on both pages to make editors aware of the issue.Caringtype1 (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

As an observer, I don't feel that this well sourced article about a character (who does have a history prior to her recent debut on the series) should be merged into that messy minor characters list. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, this article still shouldn't be merged, it's good enough as it is, IMO. Arre 06:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Just noting that I created an article for Dylan McAvoy. At the time of article creation, the character's storyline was barely enough to warrant notability. But the casting of the actor was of substantial relevance. It's enough for casting to be notable, if the article is well sourced, and this article is well sourced. Arre 14:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge. Completely non-notable at this point. Rm994 (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying MERGE or DO NOT MERGE, but I was looking at building this article, but I was definitely gonna wait until December, maybe January. However, I think the character is very much notable. And I think it can definitely be improved.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 21:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Child Actresses

As wikipedia is to be an online encyclopedia, it should be precise and thorough. All actresses who have portrayed the character should be listed, regardless of contract status.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Lilley is the only notable actress to portray the role. Other articles follow the same suit, following the soap project, etc. If we listed child actors for every role, each character may have 10+ portrayers. The character of Theresa is no exception. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"notable" does not mean "one and only." Again, wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and encyclopedias are to be thorough and precise.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Not all pages follow your personal preferences about being selective with information. See Will Horton.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again, please refrain from borderline personal attacks. It has zero to do with personal preference. It has to do with what is commonly used on U.S. soap articles. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's unfortunate their are other articles that aren't as thorough as this one now is. I've set a reminder to look into them to make the adequate improvements needed to this wonderfully excellent online encyclopedia we call wikipedia.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Arre 9: and @Raintheone: Please provide input on this. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, per infobox paramters. it reads:

Only include clarifications essential to understanding the information.

In summary, the infobox is intended as a collection of basic information and a navigational tool, not an abbreviated article. Filling it with endless trivial data defeats this purpose

Other portrayers are not essential to understanding the character of Theresa as basic information, as the bulk of the character's duration on the series stems from Lilley's portrayal and its critical reception as a character to the series' canvas. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Other portrayals are vital to a character bio. It's the first thing someone would be interested in knowing.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

But we cannot assume what a reader does or does not want to know or would be "interested" in knowing. That's why policies like WP:FANCRUFT exist, because then every single minuscule detail of a character would be included. And infoboxes alone are to include a brief over-view. And none of the children's portrayals are vital to the role of Theresa, as none of them received any long-standing time with the series, nor any accolades for their portrayal. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

But we cannot assume what valid, correct, and verifiable information an encyclopedia should allow a reader to find out???Cebr1979 (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, I should note several examples of Good Quality Articles that we are given as prime examples for soap characters. And as such, they do not list child actors as the main portrayers in the infobox. Steffy Forrester, Sharon Newman and Victoria Newman. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"There are other pages with errors so every page should have errors too" is not a valid argument.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I should note Sharon Newman has never been portrayed by a child actor, all three were adults.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I never gave that argument at all. I'm providing policies and examples from the Soap Project, which this is protected under, as prime examples of where child actors are not included. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Many child actors are not known. In the case of Theresa Donovan, they are.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

But that isn't a valid argument per Wikipedia policies. Just because a child actor is known for the role, does not mean their portrayal is at all notable in fictional use. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A characters portrayer does not fall under fictional use, it's non-fictional information (like the show(s) they appeared on and who created them).Cebr1979 (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

How does a character's portrayer not fall under fictional use of the character, especially where notability is concerned? Policies that support your evidence? Per the evidence and standards of Soap articles, the child portrayers (four within a two-year time, mind you) as well as two unknowns, are not notable for the establishment of Theresa Donovan, especially given that Jen Lilley is the most-recognized actress with the role and has gained significant notability in real-world context of the character. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, "most-recognized" does not mean "only" and your interpretations of "Wiki Policies" are broad to say the least. As editors, we don't have the right to choose what information gets posted, we're simply here to make articles better. I've done that. Cebr1979 (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Do we really need to go back and forth on this all afternoon? You can't just accept an encyclopedia entry being more thorough?Cebr1979 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again, you dodge the question. Proof of policies? I have provided guidelines and GA's that were approved by the project this page is accepted under. You've provided me with none of that to support your claims. And per the project, it states: "'Thus, an article should be created about a soap opera character only if the character is notable within the series and has been the subject of third-party discussions. Otherwise, the character should simply be included in a "List of characters" for that particular program." The child actors did not find cause or prose for the character to have its own stand-alone article away from a character list until Jen Lilley took claim of the role, which was described as "newly developed" and "not a recast" by NBC/Corday himself. And this is what Wikipedia is about; discussing things. And please, stop using "you" as it is a slight personal attack. I'm merely conversing with another editor while trying to provide the best outcome for the article, per the standards of Wikipedia and the SOAP project.

livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

""'Thus, an article should be created about a soap opera character only if the character is notable within the series and has been the subject of third-party discussions. Otherwise, the character should simply be included in a "List of characters" for that particular program.""

Great. Nowhere in that quote, however, do I see where it say's that previous actors are not allowed to be noted???Cebr1979 (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

But a character's portrayal helps create the notability of a character in the long-term run of the character's history. I doubt soap characters would be as highly notable if the roles kept changing every 2-3 weeks. Soap characters aren't generally discussed without discussion of their portrayer and portrayal of the character. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You (which is not a personal attack, as others have told you before... including a site admin) haven't provided any policies at all. You've provided general guidelines and said they were policies but, you're interpretations of them are broad and self-suiting. I'm not dodging any questions, it's just that your questions aren't taking this anywhere. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias are to be thorough, accurate, and precise. Names of actors who have portrayed fictional characters is not fictional information and does not fall under those guidelines (which aren't policies).Cebr1979 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Then, to re-phrase, you've yet to provide guidelines to support your evidence. And you are insulting me, by calling it an "interpretation" and "self-suited", which is making assumptions against me, and not the editing that I am doing. I'd like for you to point out where the guidelines support what you are saying in this. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaboratively edited, multilingual, free-access, free content Internet encyclopedia."

I'm having trouble finding guidelines and policies stating, "Please omit facts here and there."Cebr1979 (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Simply quoting and not linking does not support your claims that the child actresses should be included in the infobox. You're supporting what it is that we're doing right now. Nothing more. I'm not asking you to support the actions that we're doing right now, but supports your reasons behind including the child actors in the infobox. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Because it's accurate information!!! Have you not been paying attention???Cebr1979 (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No need use use excessive exclamation, with shows slight civility conflicts. I provided guidelines that would support the exclusion of them in the infobox, due to their inability to provide the notability of the character in a real-world context; you've yet to provide a guideline that supports the inclusion. I will be waiting for another soap editors that have been pinged to this discussion to bring forth their expertise advisement to this discussion. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"I will be waiting for another soap editors that have been pinged to this discussion to bring forth their expertise advisement to this discussion." So I can't edit an article without you or other "expert" editors giving the okay? You know you just basically said that my info is not to be considered "expert" which is bullying the newbie and you also basically said that I can;t make edits until you or other editors give the okay with is total OWNING... Shall we take this to a site admin now?Cebr1979 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)