Talk:Todd Manning/Archive 2#Possible article improvement

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_Manning&oldid=598494856 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 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, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_Manning&oldid=353899618 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)

::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)

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 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DISC8Vg1qI4&list=PLE04253D97B9A65E4 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 only three four five, 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)

:::It was listed at GAR years ago. The critrea has tightened since then. To be fair Todd's parrot look like any other pet parrot. Iconic images... Flyer we both know there are non in this article.Rain the 1 15:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

::::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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jason_Voorhees&diff=599816396&oldid=599816354#Concept_and_creation 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)

• 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 [http://www.trevorstjohn.com/ 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 "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_Manning&diff=598494856&oldid=595835574#cite_note-www.phil-donahue.com-23 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 [http://www.mediabizbloggers.com/ed-martin/34395674.html this one] and [http://www.mediabizbloggers.com/savoring-soaps/16596826.html this one], and the sources weren't originally from mediabizbloggers.com; I had to update them back in 2012, as seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_Manning&diff=511195662&oldid=511194388 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, [http://magnifmalonian.tripod.com/id30.htm#__1 this one] (magnifmalonian.tripod.com) and [http://web.archive.org/web/20061028091811/http://www.geocities.com/~onelifer/nichtern1.html 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_Manning&diff=598494856&oldid=595835574#cite_note-43 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Todd_Manning&oldid=599720011 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., [http://books.google.com/books?id=ykYR8nzIR0YC&pg=RA1-PA174&dq=Todd+Manning+rape&output=html 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 [http://www.therhfactor.net/ The RH Factor]. Take a look at [http://www.therhfactor.net/press1.html 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 [http://web.archive.org/web/20110716064443/http://www.trevorstjohn.com/interviews2.html an Interviews section that included interviews about Todd], but it doesn't seem to anymore.

:::On the topic of reference naming (WP:REFNAME), I see you changed a reference name in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Figureskatingfan/Todd_sandbox&curid=42202602&diff=599794084&oldid=599791517 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_Manning&diff=599814556&oldid=599814183#cite_note-Thomas-2 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_Manning&diff=599814556&oldid=599814183#cite_note-93 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=595978359&oldid=594336103#Notes 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas&diff=599772142&oldid=599732945#Todd_Manning_article_for_possible_WP:Featured_article_status 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 [http://web.archive.org/web/20090628134329/http://soapoperadigest.com/soapstarstats/rogerhowarthbio/ this] and [http://web.archive.org/web/20080131155120/http://soapoperadigest.com/soapstarstats/trevorstjohnbio/index1.html 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)

Noting here for documentation of this talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Figureskatingfan/Todd_sandbox&diff=600375161&oldid=600373708 I removed] the quotes that were used as sources (rather as notes), but yeah. I removed the Starr daydream bit, as shown [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Figureskatingfan/Todd_sandbox&diff=600378072&oldid=600375161 here], with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Figureskatingfan/Todd_sandbox&diff=600379424&oldid=600378072 a related move and tweak afterward]; like I stated, "I can source that Starr's daydreams were animated, and I can source that Howarth's eyes are not blue, but are actually hazel/look blue on occasions, but I can't source this passage. Also added additional source/text." The additional text I added, as shown, concerns the uproar that ensued from recasting Todd. I also made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Figureskatingfan/Todd_sandbox&diff=600379660&oldid=600379424 this fix].

I'll tweak sources from time to time, and I might trade out different sources from time to time, sometimes adding a bit of text to go along with it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)