Talk:Clare Devine

	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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hollyoaks task force.

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 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

Clare Devine or Clare Cunningham[edit]

I think it is wise to keep her name as Clare Cunningham, although she and Max are apparently divorced, most wmen keep their married name. I think it should be changed back to cunningham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.220.176 (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, facts need to be addressed first, saying that clare could still be alive is only a rumour at the moment, when there is more evedince then you could write that she's still alive. When Clare was under the water she was desperate to get out just by the expression on her face which was filled with desperation, she wanted Max to get he she tried to reach out to him but Max killed her, leaving her to sink and die. Until further evidence comes in, Clare Cunningham is officialy deceased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjkijikikji (talk • contribs) 15:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation and uncited information is too high within this article, mass opinion based trivia and other wiki-criteria are not met Matt Zero 16:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Clare's Revenge"[edit]

Everything under the "Clare's Revenge" headline is speculative and poorly written. I suggest removing it entirely.

I concur, facts need to be addressed first, saying that clare could still be alive is only a rumour at the moment, when there is more evedince then you could write that she's still alive. When Clare was under the water she was desperate to get out just by the expression on her face which was filled with desperation, she wanted Max to get he she tried to reach out to him but Max killed her, leaving her to sink and die. Until further evidence comes in, Clare Cunningham is officialy deceased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjkijikikji (talk • contribs) 15:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing the history of soap operas with people coming back from the dead because their body has not been found or, in some cases, we the viewer have not seen the body (Den, Cindy etc) it is speculative to say that Clare has died. Until the body is recovered it is better to suggest that we do not know what has happened to her. If we say 'deceased' and she turns up in two months time, we are going to look silly. (Quentin X 17:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Clare's alive -- proof[edit]

Clare did survive the "drowning," as was evidenced in the "First Look" episode for the September 21 episode. A zealous YouTube member already has the video posted. I'm only posting the link here for verification that Clare is alive, and the "Clare's exit" content in the main page isn't a hoax (as I had originally thought it was): [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.226.194 (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: The YouTube video has been removed as of (at least) Feb. 16, 2008. 96.231.68.231 (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ClareDevineHollyoaks.jpg[edit]

Image:ClareDevineHollyoaks.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:OriginalClareDevine.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:OriginalClareDevine.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

[2]RaintheOne ^BAM 16:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Clare dead or not?[edit]

Let's not forget that she "died" before, and just because she was run over, do we know that she's really dead and not breathing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.205.139 (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page locked for 48 hours[edit]

This article has been locked for 48 hours for numerous reverts and edit warring. This has been at both AVI and ANI recently. I would suggest taking this time to discuss the contents in dispute. Calmer Waters 09:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a cop-out by the admins. The anon should have been blocked for 48 hours and the page locked indefinitely to allow for discussion. You've just sent a message to every anon: go big since you won't be blocked and your preferred version of the article may actually remain in place.

As for the actual content, I don't know the subject but if the material that was added and removed is valid I see no reason to remove it simply because it was unreferenced. It should have remained and been tagged. This isn't a biography of a living person despite living performers portraying the character. If WP:BLP violations about the performers were present only that material should be removed. Removing all of the material from another editor is unacceptable.

I do not have this article on my watch list and I will likely not be back to observe the circus that may ensue, but I am disappointed with the behaviour here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the wrong message. Edit warring is unacceptable and no one can improve the article now. There was no question that this article is poor quality. But it seems if you want to improve it - you cannot. Improving articles is naughty. Adding unsourced information is trendy. Wow.Rain the 1 16:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it. There are so many other articles that will benefit from me adding sourced content. I should not have to fight to add sources. It is a given right on here. Complete farce. I prefer a hassle free editing - cannot cope with drama. It needs to be about Clare Devine rather than conflicts.Rain the 1 16:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]