Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:01, 5 June 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soap Operas This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages policies. Just because a child actor is known for the role, does not mean their portrayal is at all notable in fictional use. livelikemusic 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 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)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class television articles
• Low-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• C-Class soap opera articles
• WikiProject Soap Operas articles
• C-Class fictional character articles
• WikiProject Fictional characters articles