Jump to content

Talk:List of General Hospital characters introduced in the 2010s

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shawn page

[edit]

the section for Shawn is certainly long enough to warrant its own page. The section is longer and better than most articles for other characters, so, why shouldn't we make a page for him?Caringtype1 (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V, WP:CITE are the reasons why. He isn't Notable enough. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 18:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought that his section was better written and had more information then pages such as Olivia Falconeri, Mac Scorpio, and Johnny Zacchara.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because this section is a brand-new section and reconstructions of those three have not gone to happen. Plus, Mac's page is the longest standing for a long-standing character that requires a great deal of TLC right now. MusicFreak7676 TALK! 19:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The character has been onscreen for two years. I really do think he's notable enough to warrant his own page.Caringtype1 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO he is not notable enough and/or yet... he was offscreen for a chunk of that time and while he's contract he hasn't been integral in a lot. Also the reaction section is all about speculation of a romantic relationship that didn't really happen, (not saying it needs to be removed, just saying there should be more about reaction/reception of his character and its impact). There are entries (on other decade pages) of longer-standing characters, it's not the length on-screen its the shape of the entry needing work before being moved. In general my opinion is that these character entries should be expanded here then moved rather than moved then expanded on. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really do think that Shawn meets the notability criteria. I know more sources need to be found before the article can be created, so I have been sorting out all the information, instead of unnecessarily changing this article with every new source is found. Thoughts would be much appreciated.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Walsh

[edit]

I propose we merge Claire Walsh to this page. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think she was an important enough character to warrant her own page. She was certainly involved with a very high profile and notable storyline. But I do think the article could use some real world notability. There plenty of sources, I'm sure, so I'll start looking.Caringtype1 (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse Fletcher

[edit]

Does she really warrant a section here? She's a pretty minor character that only appeared a few times. I think a mention of the Characters page is enough.Caringtype1 (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree she should be removed and just mentioned on the full list. I think the same goes for Lisa Obrecht who was just recently added, at least at this point. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as for Obrecht, i think we should wait a while, see where her part in the storyline goes. She might just exit with the conclusion of her current storyline, but the role may turn into something more, so at least for now, we should wait. But Nurse Fletcher doesn't really need to be here.Caringtype1 (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but think we should wait to include her until she's notable rather than include her and then wait to see if she's notable... Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but there is no point in removing her, just to re-add her.Caringtype1 (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She was just added today by an IP. I don't think there is anything notable included in her entry, at which point she becomes notable a more inclusive entry could be added. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rafe Kovich jr.

[edit]

Shouldn't he be listed on the page for Children? he's about the same age as Molly and TJ, who are on the children page. Any objections to me moving his section?Caringtype1 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object, he and TJ should be in the same place. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Wells

[edit]

Is it really necessary to include him on this list already? He won't appear on the series until the end of the month, and hasn't established any real notability. All the references the exact same thing, and it can easily be summed up in an entry on the List of Characters page. After he starts to appear we can decide on whether or not he's notable enough for inclusion here.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, maybe we shouldn't add him to the list right now. We should add it near his airdate, however I don't agree that we should decide wheater or not he's notable. William DeVry said that it was a contract role, meaning he will have his own storyline making him very notable. SoapFan12 20:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is far too early to be adding the character to the page. It's not a character yet. Said user adding them tends to over-source on characters, which adds far too much clutter and unrequired material. 71.233.227.127 (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On today's air show (8-1-13) Ava called him Julian. He is likely Julian Jerome, so I think the Derek Wells article should be merged with the Julian Jerome article on the page for characters from the 80s, with Derek Well listed as an alias. I was waiting until tomorrow's air show for further confirmation that he's indeed Julian Jerome before moving the article. Sparrowhawk8 (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Britt Westbourne

[edit]

Why was this section spilt into its own article? There wasn't any discussion or anything, or at least one I was aware of. I really don't feel the character is notable enough for an article. The section here was not ready at all, and was only expanded after the spilt. And a lot of the sources used in the article are very questionable.Caringtype1 (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the actress/character is apart of the main cast. Who has been on the series for a duration nearing a year. There is enough notability that doesn't need to be discussed. The character's storylines have certainly warranted notability. What are the "questionable sources"? It's been established that the amount of time the character has been on the series doesn't determined their notability. A character who has been on for 5 months may be more relevant than a character who has been on 31 years. There are plenty of articles of lesser quality that you could be picking on. Arre 03:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After scanning through the sources once again, I've only concluded that ONE source may not be reliable (although it was posted by the actress through a verified account so I'm sure it is).Arre 03:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict, so this was written before Arre 9's second comment)The simple fact is that most soap opera characters are not notable enough to warrant entire articles. This character has been on for less than a year. Maybe she was warranted in-universe notability, but the amount of real world notability is seriously lacking. Many sources are Soaps.com, I which I don't believe is reliable, furthermore, many references are in the Storylines section, which were deemed unneeded. Other refs' reliability can be called into question as well, and I have no idea what the first two even are. The article certainly can be condensed and merged with this article, without losing vital information. Being apart of the main cast does not make them notable at all. Generally, most fictional characters never get split into their own article. And I'm not "picking on" any article.Caringtype1 (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She Knows Soaps is reliable, it's owned by AtomicOnline. References into the storyline only add more reliability to the article, and it doesn't matter if you add them or not, that's a weak argument against the notability of a character. It doesn't matter if the role has been on for less than a year. The first two references are references to the show (General Hospital), which are used a lot on Wikipedia, so try and identify what a source is before declaring that it's questionable just because you aren't aware if what it is. Also, there is a reception section, which a lot of articles lack. In closing I didn't say being apart of the main cast made her notable, but that along with the notability it has to the show, makes it notable.Arre 04:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still can't agree that many of those refs are reliable or even needed. half the article is 'fluff' designed to make the subject seem more notable than it actually is.Caringtype1 (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um okay "fluff", what are you talking about? "Casting" contains relevant information. "Character development" contains relevant information about the characterization of the role, "Storylines" contains relevant information about the character's story (including relevant topic storylines such as blackmail, romance, pregnancy, etc, which have all made an impact on the show), with sources which makes it even more verifiable, "Reception" also contains relevant opinions, either negative and positive, about the character and the actress' portrayal. So before you declare sources unreliable or article material as fluff, you should specify what you mean. I can go into further detail about the fluff, if you would like. Arre 04:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This awful article is big enough as it is. There's clearly enough information to warrant the Britt Westbourne article (I mean... just look at it...) — Status (talk · contribs) 04:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Just looking at it" is the problem, once you actually read it, you can see that its contents can easily be condensed here.Caringtype1 (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? This shitty article (that shouldn't even exist) isn't long enough as it is? — Status (talk · contribs) 05:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... maybe it's because you planned on creating the article yourself? — Status (talk · contribs) 05:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Caringtype1, you have said over and over you want the Britt article to be condense and merged back into this article, because it contains bad references and "fluff". Yet you haven't bothered to even identify the references/"fluff" material so that these issues can be fixed, so that tells me you haven't read it fully either, you didn't even know what the episode citations were. Arre 05:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Caringtype1, you appear to be blatantly contradicting yourself when you say this character doesn't warrant an article, when you have a "Test Page" in progress for the subject at hand, which I didn't even see before. I doubt you would be working on a sandbox for a character if you weren't going to create an article for it.Arre 05:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't why. If I wanted to create the article, why would I be saying it should be merged? That doesn't make sense. Arre 9, I know what the "episode citations" are, what i don't understand is their purpose or the horrible way they are formatted. My test pages are for maintaining sections from articles like these, in a more experimental setting. My test page only sites three sources, which doesn't anyway indicate I wanted to create the article anytime soon.Caringtype1 (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it won't exist... and you can create it? — Status (talk · contribs) 05:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What? What would be the point of that?Caringtype1 (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That really doesn't make sense, if you want to maintain sections, edit them. "Executive producer: Frank Valentini; Head writer: Ron Carlivati (March 22, 2013) (in English). General Hospital. Season 49. ABC Network."-------> how is this horribly sourced?
You did mention "I have no idea what the first two even are", referring to references. The "Cite episode" template is used. Nonetheless, I don't see the point in continuously commenting here when you don't make any indication as to what the "fluff"/"bad references" are. You are stating that Status didn't read the article, but it appears you haven't fully examined this article either before coming to your personal conclusions that it should be merged back into this awful article. Arre 05:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like to see what a section could look like before I edit, so I can see potential problems. I'm done arguing this. I haven't gotten any support, and you two are the only ones commenting, what no matter what I say, you'll poke a million holes in my argument. So, I'm done.Caringtype1 (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Caringtype1 I am clearly encouraging you to inform me WHAT the named issues are with Britt Westbourne but you haven't even bothered. So don't come here with "I haven't gotten any support" "no matter what I say" etc. I'm still encouraging you to identify the specific fluff material and bad references you have brought up, and feel frustrated myself that someone says there are huge issues but won't even say what they are. Arre 05:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Caringtype1 seems to take up issues with articles that he seems to not support, from his edit history it seems. Per the guideline of soaps and vverification with third-party sourcing, the Britt Wesbourne article has more than proven its notability per notability guidelines. And it also is proven more so and more professionally and accomplished than a lot of other articles, including one Caringtype seems to support in his own right, ignoring the fact that NOTHING has been proven (but he ignores me when I mention it). The page should stay. It meets the guidelines. This user just seems to be up for battling against character pages he seems to not support. Totally a biased editor in my opinion. He also seems to believe he's the one who can only make articles better, which seems to me a bit of the case of owning an article and unwillingness to try and even begin to support his side of his arguments that he originally begins himself with. ALSO! Other GH articles have split into their own by other members, and it seems he does not go and canvas them, only those who create articles who he seems to have had personal vendettas against. livelikemusic my talk page! 01:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Britt Westbourne article is obviously notable enough. To say "bad references" and "fluff" is a reason for an article not to be created is bogus, there are numerous characters from numerous soaps that are highly notable and their articles may cite no sources at all, but they aren't usually debated because they're either long-running or notable. (E.g. Lauren Fenmore, Bobby Spencer, Donna Logan). Not to mention that the character is already highly notable among social media, considering the character is portrayed by an actress on contract. Look at Dylan McAvoy; that is a GA and has been a DYK and the character only made his debut in January 2013, and it doesn't have to have a lot of sources either. This article has already been a DYK and from the looks of it could easily become a GA with a bit more work. All this to say is that "bad references" and "fluff" are certainly not reasons for an article not to be created. Regards, Creativity97 03:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou Livelikemusic and C97, I'm happy someone sees the good in this article, and that it isn't full of fluff or bad references. Also I was trying to contact you on your talk page (Caringtype1) to ask you for the umpteenth time what the issues were with this article but you have removed my comments. Refrain from asserting your declarations that a character isn't notable enough for an article when you can't back up what you say. Nonetheless, It's evident that you wanted the create the Britt Westbourne article yourself, because your "Test Page" history proves that you use it to build articles: ([1][2]). And apparently I was the one taking it personally. Arre 04:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

In my sandbox, I've been working on establishing character list for each year, and there quite a few characters that aren't covered. I know, this was done for The Young and the Restless, and it has worked quite well. It has always been done for EastEnders, and it works really well. I was wondering if editors would support this split, and would be willing to use the information in my sandboxes to help create the articles. For example, here is the soon to be completed list for the characters introduced in 2013, HERE. The other sandboxes are saved in files on my computer. I can post them in sandboxes again if editors are willing to help expand them as articles. --Nk3play2 my buzz 16:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, do not think this is a good idea. There really isn't enough notability to warrant a page for each year of characters. Plus, there are sourcing issues as well. I think this page needs a lot of work before a spilt can be discussed. Also I think it's a better idea to have pages like this being for characters introduced during the specific time, but aren't ready for their own page. Your sandbox is very well done, but I think its repetitive to include characters with their own pages, since they're listed on the characters page. Caringtype1 (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I am saying. The list I've done so far, the characters are extremely notable. However, the list have never been expanded to show the notability of these characters. Since 2010, I've noticed that a lot of high profile characters, though short lived, were introduced on this show, but majority of them were not covered extensively on this article.--Nk3play2 my buzz 17:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I think it's better to expand and work on this page instead of splitting it into several pages that need work.Caringtype1 (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think, given the work you've gone, it is still too early to split pages. A lot of tidying up would need to be done, looking at your sandbox. I'd have to wait and see more work being done before any discussion was made. Because I'm also still not completely sold on per-year basis pages for the past four years, when one collective page would gain more notability and meet more standards if more years were placed together. livelikemusic my talk page! 19:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in General Hospital characters (2010s)

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of General Hospital characters (2010s)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "SOD030314":

  • From Nathan West (character): Levinsky, Mara (March 3, 2014). "Beginner's Luck". Soap Opera Digest. 39 (9). American Media, Inc.: 54–57.
  • From Ryan Paevey: Levinsky, Mara (March 3, 2014). "Beginner's Luck". Soap Opera Digest. 39 (9). American Media, Inc.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on General Hospital characters (2010s). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Madeline Reeves

[edit]

The character has its own page. I think some some can be shortened and a main article link to the character's page. I don't want to do this until there is a consensus. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on General Hospital characters (2010s). 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) 02:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Reeves

[edit]

There is absolutely no confirmation from ABC or GH that Nelle Benson is the daughter of Nina Reeves. The onscreen hints are too obvious, likely a red herring. Someone changed this page based off of tabloid and social media rumor. It needs fixed. SPL79 (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-text implication has been made, via the broken necklace charm. Unless it is stated, via script, that they are not related, the sub-text implication is enough verifiability for parental connection. livelikemusic (TALK!) 15:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pat Spencer (lacrosse) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Gilmore

[edit]

I just wanted to know, when are you going to add Sasha Gilmore here for characters introduced in the 2010s and added her family lineage, also. Aboutnici (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_General_Hospital_characters_introduced_in_the_2010s&oldid=1259118539"