Talk:List of Days of Our Lives characters introduced in the 1960s

Shane Donovan was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 03 June 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of Days of Our Lives characters introduced in the 1960s. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Stephanie Johnson was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 May 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of Days of Our Lives characters introduced in the 1960s. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Conner Lockhart was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 29 January 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of Days of Our Lives characters introduced in the 1960s. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 January 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Television

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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 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

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

Current contract characters should have their own articles

Current contract characters shouldn't be included here, and should have their own articles. This includes Melanie Layton, Chad Dimera, and Sonny Kiriakis, who as of now has his own characters. These characters aren't minor, so doesn't make sense to include them here.--Ahmad123987 (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

This is really a list, so a better title for consistency's sake would be List of minor characters of Days of our Lives. Would anyone object to such a move, or perhaps even a merge to List of Days of our Lives characters? --El on ka 17:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Layton

Does anyone else feel that Melanie Layton needs to have her own article. She's become much more than a minor character, and is on Days almost every episode. Does anyone else agree? She has the longest information on this page than anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabi Hernandez (talk • contribs) 21:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She only has the most information on this page because the fangirls conistently add poorly worded plot summaries to most of the articles here. I could add more information to any article here, and then that one would be longer. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with notability. There is no way that Melanie Layton deserves her own article. It was already previously deleted in a discussion. As previously mentioned elsewhere, articles should have real world assertions of notability, meaning real world sources affirm that this character is notable OUTSIDE the soap opera realm. To be honest, most of the Days of our Lives characters do not meet this criteria, and the only reason they haven't been deleted is because no one has proposed their deletion, and other editors have tried to add sources/notability in order to save them. For those of you who are wondering about this criteria, please see WP:NOTE. Hope this helps! Rm994 (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I agree that Melanie (and maybe Rafe as well) probably deserves her own page at this point. I don't even like Melanie much, but as one of the main characters of Days of our Lives right now, I'd say that makes her just as notable as many of the other characters with their own articles. I'm not saying every character needs their own articles and that we should give one to Gabi or Chad or even Daniel at this point, but for characters like Melanie or Rafe who are truly driving the story? Maybe they deserve it. --99.142.6.124 (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I was trying to say. If Claire has her own page, and she is a child character, Melanie should have her own page. All of the wikipedia editors disagree with me. I'm just saying Melanie now has family ties, and is no longer a minor character. Gabriela Hernandez 21:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabi Hernandez (talk • contribs)

Criteria for notability has nothing to do with "how much air time" a character has, or whether or not they are driving the storyline. The notability for character pages comes from OUTSIDE the soap opera realm. And to be frankly honest, people who don't watch Days would have no clue who Melanie Layton is. Wikipedia is not a fan page, it's an encylopedia. Most of the character pages on here are worthy of deletion for one reason or another, they just haven't been nominated, because the people involved in the wiki soap opera project want to see them flourish and grow. Please read WP:NOTE for more information. Rm994 (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys need to give Melanie her own article because she is on for nearly two years now and that the true paternity of her parents have now been revealed.

That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she has an entry here. Read WP:NOTE. Rm994 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie is getting her own page tomorrow. She is NOT a minor character, and she has not been a minor character in years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.177.248.92 (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Jonas and Rafe Hernandez

Does anyone think both Daniel Jonas and Rafe Hernandez need their own articles now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razzfan (talk • contribs) 20:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Rafe & Daniel are not big enough characters, with a big enough fan base, and real world notabilitly for them to have them own universe. I'm going to quote what I was once told, "Nobody outside of Days of our Lives viewers would know who they are." People need to know who Rafe Hernandez, or Daniel Jonas is. --Gabriela Hernandez 02:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Stephanie Johnson

Can someone here give Stephanie her own article back! She's been a major character on the show for the past three years! --Razzfan (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with notability, and whether or not a character deserves a separate article. Read WP:NOTE. This is an encyclopedia people. NOT Soap Opera Digest. Rm994 (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break! Wikipedia is invaluable to soap fans, other parts of Wikipedia should be improved as well. Also appreciated is the list of characters at the top in the other DOOL page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Minor Characters

What is the standard for adding new characters to this article? I recently added several characters with what I would consider large numbers of episode appearance and significant amounts of dialogue, and another user deleted all of them. I'd like to know what the standard is, or what that user, Rm994, considers the standard to be, so that we have somewhere from which to start.

For the record, I want to add Dario Hernandez, the Rafe Hernandez impostor ("Rafe2" or "Javier Morales"), Fay Walker, Taylor Walker, Mary (DiMera servant), Gus (Vivian's servant), Maxine (nurse at University Hospital), and Troy (Arianna's boss in the drug ring). --DavidK93 (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion as to what the "standard" for adding characters is. What I have issue with is the addition of unsourced material. It's not that hard to place a citation on anything added. All of the above mentioned characters probably should be added to this page, and I have no issue with that. But per guidelines, unsourced material can be promptly removed. Also, the addition of day to day plot summary and minor plot points are not needed in an encylopedia. See WP:PLOT for more information. Rm994 (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that unsourced material can be promptly removed. However, the "Burden of evidence" heading in the WP:V policy indicates that for articles other than those on living people, it's considered good form to give the original editor time to find a source, or to find a source and cite it yourself. Also note that the policy for sourcing material is explicitly stated as "In practice you do not need to attribute everything; only quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed." You've identified yourself as a regular watcher of Days of our Lives, so I would hope that in the future, when you see unsourced information added to a Days-related article, where you know the information to be an accurate (or close enough to accurate to be easily corrected) and therefore should not have reason to think the information would be challenged, you would consider finding a source or tagging it as unsourced rather than just deleting it. I will work harder to add citations when I add content (I had every intention of coming back later to add citations.), but I'm not the only person who edits Days articles, and I believe you are applying a more rigorous standard and enforcing it more quickly than actually required by the WP:V policy. --DavidK93 (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to add that the section on Parker Jonas is so incomplete as to be non-existent. He was important in the story in the conflict with Chloe, etc.

Stephanie's exit

Can you please the section of Stephanie Johnson because she last aired on April 6, 2011 by dropping off the canvas after having lunch with Dario Hernandez and is off to an unknown location. --24.177.6.158 (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Where's the source? How do you know she's not coming back. This is why we MUST source with reliable 3rd party sources. Rm994 (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article at soapcentral.com (http://www.soapcentral.com/days/news/2011/0118-hennig_johnson.php) says that Henning's departure, at least, was discussed in an interview the actress gave to SOD. Is soapcentral considered a reliable source? We can't say that Stephanie is leaving Salem unless there's a source for that, but we can at least say that no replacement has been announced for the role. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, per WP:V fan sites are not reliable sources. Rm994 (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't see any reference to "fan sites" in WP:V. Can you please clarify which passage you are construing to apply to "fan sites," and what you consider to be the definition of the otherwise undefined term "fan site"? --DavidK93 (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FANSITE. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that guideline explicitly states, "This guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content." [emphasis original] --DavidK93 (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you actually watched the show instead of just reverting wikipedia posts you know nothing about, then you would know that the character of Stephanie Johnson (lastly portrayed by Shelley Hennig) is in fact gone from the show and has not been onscreen since April 6, 2011. 99.98.64.201 (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some want Stephanie to have her own page, but at least update the article where she is listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At what point is someone considered not "Recent/Current" anymore?

We've got people like Dr. Baker, Lee and Jane from the prison, Madeline Peterson-Woods, who were all temporary recurring characters and have all been gone for awhile. Do they still need to be there indefinitely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.147.53.6 (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that several characters should no longer be considered "recent." I suppose a "recent" character should be construed to be one whose actions and/or death are no longer treated as part of an ongoing storyline. So, for example, Fay Walker might have been considered recent while her death was being investigated or while Nicole was trying to figure out what Fay wanted her to know. But she's probably not recent anymore, now that her killer is dead and everybody seems to have forgotten her existence. --DavidK93 (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Articles

Is it possible that Chad DiMera and Melanie Jonas can get their own individual articles. I think the characters are notable enough for their own articles. I could start the articles but I would need approval before I could start them.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 03:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. There's not enough notability to their articles/characters. I believe they should stay in Minor Characters. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Was getting rid of the Sonny article really necessary?

I don't understand why it was redirected back to this article. The character is quite known for being the first gay character in the soap's history, and in my opinion that kind of a character needs their own article. Their was plenty of information, and the article was still being worked on. A discussion would have been appreciated first, since it only took me 6-7 hours to "finish" the article. I'm sorry, I just found that extremely rude. CloudKade11 (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I came across this article while patrolling old merge proposals, and found the article to be in a terrible state. In fact this is not an article, it is a collection of 50 or so articles all on the same page. If I understand the rationale, this is so that when one of these becomes notable, the article can be split. This is not an appropriate use of article space, I would just about understand this being a userspace draft, but not an article.

I was mulling over whether to nominate the article for deletion again, when I decided to bring a proposal here to talk as an alternative. The proposal is a drastic one: for all of the articles for which citations can be found, cut the articles down to a short paragraph each. For every article for which no citations can be found, cut those out altogether. Obviously this wouldn't be done immediately, time should be given to editors to find sources for the unsourced items. I have tagged all of the articles without a single citation with {{unreferenced}}. If this can be done, the article could be then merged into List of Days of our Lives characters. Thoughts? Quasi human | Talk 23:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Madison, Kate, and Ian

I have been watching the show and Madison James is now married to Ian McAllister. It's been on of the big storylines now and I think it would be appropiate to put Ian as Madison's spouse. Also Kate was in a romantic relationship with Ian. Entertainer91 (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split

I am proposing that this list be separated into several separate character list depending on the decade in which each character was introduced, or re-introduced with a significant storyline. I've been thinking of a series of lists similar to these, List of The Young and the Restless characters (2010s) and List of General Hospital characters (2000s)--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 17:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support such. And if you need any help with creditable sources Nick, please, let me know! _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 03:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also support it. Although the turn "Minor" is misleading as some of the characters are "Recurring", so maybe the title of the articles should be slightly modified as well.--Ahmad123987 (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are plenty of major but non-notable characters here, like Melanie Jonas. When the word "minor" is invoked with respect to a fictional character, it is normally construed as referring to the importance of the character within the fictional work, rather than to the character's real-world notability. I do feel that this article is redundant with the List of Days of our Lives characters article. A time-based set of lists might make sense. I think characters should be placed on the list pertaining to the time period in which they premiered, with a section listing characters that appeared on the show in that decade but premiered in others. The lists will need to stretch back further than 1980, though, to the show's premiere in 1965. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Split? This article is barely up to notability standards, if it makes it. You've got 29 characters between the first and second sections. There's another 37 in the historic character. To support all of these 66 characters you've got a whopping total of 48 citations. 48. But wait! It gets better! Of those 48, 9 are to Soap Opera Digest. Guess what? 8 of them are dead. There's another 10 links in addition to that which are dead too. 18 dead links, of 48. That brings us down to 30. Of the remaining ones, 7 are to primary sources and 1 is a fansite. Only a bout half of the references are actually to reliable secondary sources. For the amount of characters that are in this article, it is largely unreferenced. Before splitting this article, figure out how to save it from deletion, because that's where it's headed with such atrocious work on the citations. There's an enormous amount of fancruft and in-universe style writing in this article. Split it up? Hell no. Take it back to the drawing board and figuring out what's worth keeping, and ditch the other 90%. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really necessary.Caringtype1 (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I don't watch Days so don't know what works best for this series, but for what it's worth, the decade pages seem to work well for General Hospital, especially when merging stub articles that aren't developed enough to stand alone yet. Also, I've fixed some of the dead links Hammersoft referenced above. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing the tag, the discussion appears to have ceased without a clear concensus emerging. I think other means, as described by hammersoft, should be investigated before taking the sledgehammer approach. Op47 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Kiriakis

I think this character should have their own page. First Sonny(Freddie Smith) already got alot of attention because he the first gay character on the show in 45 years, and now currently for the gay bullying storyline. http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/lgbt/Soap-opera-debuts-gay-bullying-story/39066.html http://sdgln.com/news/2012/08/17/freddie-smith-antigay-bullying-homophobia-days-of-our-lives What do you guys think? 204.191.128.44 (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a new name for the page?

It's pretty hard to believe that characters like Rafe, Daniel, Mike Horton, Shane Donovan, etc... are referred to as "minor."Cebr1979 (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– For WP:CONSISTENCY usage with other "List of <program name> characters" articles as can be seen in the move consensus on Talk:List of Smallville characters/Archives/2023/December#Requested move 10 December 2018 and Talk:List of Glee characters#Requested move 5 December 2018, the examples of WP:NCTV#List articles, and all other soap opera articles at Category:Lists of soap opera characters by series and sub-categories such as Category:Lists of EastEnders characters, Category:Lists of Emmerdale characters and Category:Lists of General Hospital characters. Gonnym (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure – These are basically "list" articles, and the originals will still exist as redirects, so readers will still be able to find them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, conciseness, brevity, and stable usage. "List" is implied by the title, and the presents titles are concise while at the same time not leading to any confusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So, are you trying to claim that, under WP:NCLIST, these articles are "set index articles"?... Because, as far as I can tell, that's basically the only scenario in which a "list article" doesn't need to be named "List of [...]". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'm implying that the stable names are concise and cause no confusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:CONSISTENCY. oncamera 02:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comments at Talk:List of Glee characters and Talk:List of Smallville characters and the outcome of those move discussions. Dekimasuよ! 02:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.