Talk:Brooke Logan

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 Wikipedia. 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 articles

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. 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 articles

This article is in bad shape

According to WP:SOAPS (the soap opera wikiproject), there are many problems with this article. Nothing establishes the notability of the character, there are no sources of any kind supplied, the storyline/summary should be 500 to 1,000 words long, and it shouldn't include information only interesting to fans of the show (WP:CRUFT). This article fails on all these points and more. Unless someone supplies some sources and starts fixing things in this article I think the only thing to do is to delete everything except the lead paragraph and infobox. SQGibbon (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These Bold and the Beautiful character articles (and possibly most soap character articles) are all in bad shape; and my attempts to clean a few up—by at least correcting the verb tense, condensing information, removing superfluous information and correcting attempts to pretend that when soap writers revise a character's history, the original history simply vanishes—have already met with resistance. If editors refuse to allow these pages to at least look halfway presentable, much less meet Wikipedia standards, they should probably be deleted or merged. The article on the One Life to Live character, Todd Manning, while way overlong, at least has the right idea. -- JustinSpurlin (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't know what to do. I have absolutely no interest in or knowledge of this show or these characters. I can recognize articles that are nowhere near Wikipedia standards and I can delete a bunch of stuff but there's nothing much I can do to help build good articles. It's really going to take someone who knows the show and the characters as well as Wikipedia guidelines and policy to make a real change throughout the soap opera project. If you have the energy/passion to do the work I can help out in purely technical manners and in talk page discussions. It would be nice to salvage the articles instead of merging or stubifying them but if those are the only realistic choices then that's what should happen. The Todd Manning article is too long but on quick glance it seems well-sourced and full of information about the cultural significance of the character and not just fan ramblings about the in-universe details of the character. If only we could get the rest of these articles anywhere near that level ... SQGibbon (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain. I attempted to take on some of the telenovela articles (which is sort of indirectly how I ended up watching this page even though I haven't watched this show since it came out when I was a kid) and pretty much any/all attempts to clean them up get reverted. The in-uni fancruft is EPIC (on pretty much any fiction but tv really seems to bring it out in peeps).

Todd Manning is a bit of an iconic character because of the plot lines they've put him in on that show. I think that likely made it easier for the content creators of that article to whip it into shape. B&B is one of the relatively newer soaps (premiered mid-80s) and I've just never seen as much critical analysis for its characters and plots as I've seen for the older shows. That's not to say it isn't out there; I've just not seen it. I have no idea, truly. I just try to keep the blatant cruft under control when I can check in on the page. I think the merger idea is likely going to be the way to go for a lot of these articles but I'd bet money any attempts to do so will be edit war reverted (while no well sourced material is added).

I'm pretty much ready to throw my hands up on all of the soap articles I watch. It's just not worth the headache. Millahnna (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't understand why we're fighting people who make such terrible edits. If there are a hundred idiots routinely making bad edits and and adding fancruft, why doesn't Wikipedia ban a hundred idiots? If it's that difficult to remove bad contributors, then this site is not for me.

However, if a battle is to be fought, the Brooke Logan article may be the perfect place to fight it. Unlike Todd Manning, who stirs trouble mainly in the general media, Brooke Logan is intensely controversial among fans. She inspires fierce loyalty and fierce hatred among viewers. The cruftiest of fancruft is likely to appear here. But since The Bold and the Beautiful is the most popular U.S. soap outside the U.S., it probably has a fair amount of attention in the general media. The other day, I read how heatedly the show is debated among Kenyans while browsing through "Africans and the Politics of Popular Culture" on Google Books. -- JustinSpurlin (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking or banning people because of a content dispute pretty much goes against the grain of what Wikipedia is. We are all expected to operate in good faith and to work together on articles. If someone is disruptive, edit wars, does not participate in discussions, and so on then eventually that person can be blocked but it's not because of the content of their edits but because how they behave while making those edits. (Obviously vandalism is a different thing and can be dealt with swiftly and mercilessly).

If you want to start with this article then go for it. It's a priority on my watch list (meaning I watch it especially closely to keep the fancruft from creeping back in) and I can help with copy editing, formatting, and various technical issues surrounding editing as well as style concerns. SQGibbon (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Justin Gee. A book that notes the show's popularity in Kenya and cultural impact there sounds exactly like something that would be good for one of the B&B related articles.

@ SQG The edit warring and lack of communication has been a problem in the other situations I've noted (the telenovelas). I'm guessing there is a language barrier limiting communication and don't think that most of the people I tried communicating with about individual pages even know that they have a talk page. I wasn't entirely sure what to do with the series of mad edits (fancruft, MOS issues, grammar and tone being the biggest on those articles). I tried to get some help from the SOAPS folks (which is how I stumbled onto a conversation about this page) but didn't really get anywhere. People are, like you said yourself, a little hesitant to probe too deeply on an article they have little familiarity with. Doesn't stop me from trying periodically but it does present problems (I have to sort of assume that the bare facts on thsoe articles are correct and edit text around them). Millahnna (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Readded the tags

THe changes to the article were an improvement but it's still mostly an in-universe summary of what's happened to the character on the show. There is no information about casting, character portrayal, real world cultural impact. And we only have two references so I switched to the refimprove tag. Millahnna (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article still needs work and still needs more references. But isn't the trouble with the in-universe style corrected? The verb tense is now correct. And even though the brief plot summary has only a few scattered out-of-universe notes (such a 2001 retcon), plot summaries in themselves are not forbidden or considered in-universe, are they? -- JustinSpurlin (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the fact that it's pretty much only plot stuff that makes it a problem. In the tag itself, there's a link to a description of the concept that explains it better than I ever could (though I've got some examples of stuff we could look for above). What you did today is an improvement, though, no doubt at all. I haven't followed the show closely in a long time but I'm assuming there are some interviews in some of the soap mags that we could dig up to cover some stuff. Millahnna (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least the tag will encourage others to find some out-of-universe information on this character. I don't have any access to old soap magazines, but those who do would being doing Wikipedia a favor by digging them out and using them to add worthwhile information to these soap articles. I also hope certain editors will stop fighting attempts to acknowledge that the histories of these characters have been frequently revised. But even the information in the Infoboxes subtly undermines that effort. To say that certain characters are deceased or that they are former this or ex- that, pretends that the characters have current lives with actual pasts. Granted, it's useful to know what characters are dead, and what jobs characters no longer have, as per the current episode of shows that are currently running. But it would be better if we said things like dead on May 21, 2001 episode; revised history: 1999; or off-screen marriage 1960; later revised to 1957. These characters, like all fictional characters, exist in a perpetual present.-- JustinSpurlin (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you. Longstanding problem with the infoboxes on other tv projects I poke at with more depth. I only ending up adding this to my watchlist because of a conversation about the page being a problem. We've run into the same thing on the Buffy project though. Something about those fields make some people feel like they should be all filled out with in-show stuff instead of the real world stuff. I like the idea of phrasing you introduce, particularly for soaps where characters dying repeatedly happens a fair amount. I wonder if it would look too bulky in the box. Millahnna (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

So much discussion and there only two offline sources were added - yet there are no online sources provided on this character entry.. There are so many - I've pulled up four in under three minutes.

[1] - Interview with KKL and has information for characterisation, Lang's approach to portraying the character etc
[2] - This is pay-walled but it can be used for casting informtion about Ferguson taking over the role.
[3] - Has some information about the reinvention of the Logans
[4] - Has real world information and quotes about the Brooke/Ridge pairingRaintheOne ^BAM 04:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brooke Logan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brooke Logan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Logan

Brooke didn't have relationship with Thorne and Nick. She was married to them. Her marriage to Thorne was invalid. She was happy cause it meant she could wed Ridge despite telling Macy she and Thorne were soul mates after jumping uninvited into Macy's car and harassing her til the car crashed killing Macy but Brooke walked away uninjured. 174.215.220.234 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]