Talk:Theresa Donovan

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

Merge?[edit]

This character isn't notable enough for an article. Should be merged into the minor character page.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than enough sources claiming her notability. There are lots of other soap pages with less sourcing that should be redirected before Theresa's article. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are about 13 real sources and they all say the same thing. There is no established notability beyond the casting. The character had a minor role, and has only recently become a larger presence on the canvass. Caringtype1 (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not each source states the same thing, it's still credited enough. There are other pages, such as Pete Cortlandt, a page you support, that should be redirected to due no real world context or support other than one source. Theresa has been known to the series for decades, and has been proven notable in its sourcing. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Half your argument is basically "well other pages are worse", which isn't a defense. The character has been known as a very minor child character, and has never affected notable storylines, at least not yet. The only real world notability is that the role was cast with known actress, which is what the sources say. All the (relevant) sources repeat each other, and could very easily be summed up on the Minor Characters page.Caringtype1 (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disgaree. And the fact you're ignoring a fact I pointed out merely shows cause that you're not even caring other than to just re-direct a page that has real-world context and notable sourcing that dates decades. The page should remain in tact, especially until others have discussed. As such, other pages with characters with no ties to canvas or history have been deemed notable and given the chance to remain. This one should as well. livelikemusic my talk page! 23:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still like to know what other editors (who aren't the primary author of the article) have to say. I'll pace a merge proposal template on both pages to make editors aware of the issue.Caringtype1 (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an observer, I don't feel that this well sourced article about a character (who does have a history prior to her recent debut on the series) should be merged into that messy minor characters list. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, this article still shouldn't be merged, it's good enough as it is, IMO. Arre 06:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I created an article for Dylan McAvoy. At the time of article creation, the character's storyline was barely enough to warrant notability. But the casting of the actor was of substantial relevance. It's enough for casting to be notable, if the article is well sourced, and this article is well sourced. Arre 14:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Completely non-notable at this point. Rm994 (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying MERGE or DO NOT MERGE, but I was looking at building this article, but I was definitely gonna wait until December, maybe January. However, I think the character is very much notable. And I think it can definitely be improved.--Nk3play2 my buzz 21:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Child Actresses[edit]

As wikipedia is to be an online encyclopedia, it should be precise and thorough. All actresses who have portrayed the character should be listed, regardless of contract status.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lilley is the only notable actress to portray the role. Other articles follow the same suit, following the soap project, etc. If we listed child actors for every role, each character may have 10+ portrayers. The character of Theresa is no exception. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"notable" does not mean "one and only." Again, wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and encyclopedias are to be thorough and precise.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Caitlin Wachs is also a notable actress.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not all pages follow your personal preferences about being selective with information. See Will Horton.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please refrain from borderline personal attacks. It has zero to do with personal preference. It has to do with what is commonly used on U.S. soap articles. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate their are other articles that aren't as thorough as this one now is. I've set a reminder to look into them to make the adequate improvements needed to this wonderfully excellent online encyclopedia we call wikipedia.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Arre 9: and @Raintheone: Please provide input on this. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per infobox paramters. it reads:
Only include clarifications essential to understanding the information.
In summary, the infobox is intended as a collection of basic information and a navigational tool, not an abbreviated article. Filling it with endless trivial data defeats this purpose
Other portrayers are not essential to understanding the character of Theresa as basic information, as the bulk of the character's duration on the series stems from Lilley's portrayal and its critical reception as a character to the series' canvas. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other portrayals are vital to a character bio. It's the first thing someone would be interested in knowing.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But we cannot assume what a reader does or does not want to know or would be "interested" in knowing. That's why policies like WP:FANCRUFT exist, because then every single minuscule detail of a character would be included. And infoboxes alone are to include a brief over-view. And none of the children's portrayals are vital to the role of Theresa, as none of them received any long-standing time with the series, nor any accolades for their portrayal. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But we cannot assume what valid, correct, and verifiable information an encyclopedia should allow a reader to find out???Cebr1979 (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Also, I should note several examples of Good Quality Articles that we are given as prime examples for soap characters. And as such, they do not list child actors as the main portrayers in the infobox. Steffy Forrester, Sharon Newman and Victoria Newman. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"There are other pages with errors so every page should have errors too" is not a valid argument.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I should note Sharon Newman has never been portrayed by a child actor, all three were adults.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never gave that argument at all. I'm providing policies and examples from the Soap Project, which this is protected under, as prime examples of where child actors are not included. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many child actors are not known. In the case of Theresa Donovan, they are.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that isn't a valid argument per Wikipedia policies. Just because a child actor is known for the role, does not mean their portrayal is at all notable in fictional use. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A characters portrayer does not fall under fictional use, it's non-fictional information (like the show(s) they appeared on and who created them).Cebr1979 (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does a character's portrayer not fall under fictional use of the character, especially where notability is concerned? Policies that support your evidence? Per the evidence and standards of Soap articles, the child portrayers (four within a two-year time, mind you) as well as two unknowns, are not notable for the establishment of Theresa Donovan, especially given that Jen Lilley is the most-recognized actress with the role and has gained significant notability in real-world context of the character. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "most-recognized" does not mean "only" and your interpretations of "Wiki Policies" are broad to say the least. As editors, we don't have the right to choose what information gets posted, we're simply here to make articles better. I've done that. Cebr1979 (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to go back and forth on this all afternoon? You can't just accept an encyclopedia entry being more thorough?Cebr1979 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Again, you dodge the question. Proof of policies? I have provided guidelines and GA's that were approved by the project this page is accepted under. You've provided me with none of that to support your claims. And per the project, it states: "'Thus, an article should be created about a soap opera character only if the character is notable within the series and has been the subject of third-party discussions. Otherwise, the character should simply be included in a "List of characters" for that particular program." The child actors did not find cause or prose for the character to have its own stand-alone article away from a character list until Jen Lilley took claim of the role, which was described as "newly developed" and "not a recast" by NBC/Corday himself. And this is what Wikipedia is about; discussing things. And please, stop using "you" as it is a slight personal attack. I'm merely conversing with another editor while trying to provide the best outcome for the article, per the standards of Wikipedia and the SOAP project.

livelikemusic my talk page! 23:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

""'Thus, an article should be created about a soap opera character only if the character is notable within the series and has been the subject of third-party discussions. Otherwise, the character should simply be included in a "List of characters" for that particular program.""

Great. Nowhere in that quote, however, do I see where it say's that previous actors are not allowed to be noted???Cebr1979 (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But a character's portrayal helps create the notability of a character in the long-term run of the character's history. I doubt soap characters would be as highly notable if the roles kept changing every 2-3 weeks. Soap characters aren't generally discussed without discussion of their portrayer and portrayal of the character. livelikemusic my talk page! 23:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You (which is not a personal attack, as others have told you before... including a site admin) haven't provided any policies at all. You've provided general guidelines and said they were policies but, you're interpretations of them are broad and self-suiting. I'm not dodging any questions, it's just that your questions aren't taking this anywhere. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias are to be thorough, accurate, and precise. Names of actors who have portrayed fictional characters is not fictional information and does not fall under those guidelines (which aren't policies).Cebr1979 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then, to re-phrase, you've yet to provide guidelines to support your evidence. And you are insulting me, by calling it an "interpretation" and "self-suited", which is making assumptions against me, and not the editing that I am doing. I'd like for you to point out where the guidelines support what you are saying in this. livelikemusic my talk page! 23:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a collaboratively edited, multilingual, free-access, free content Internet encyclopedia."
I'm having trouble finding guidelines and policies stating, "Please omit facts here and there."Cebr1979 (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Simply quoting and not linking does not support your claims that the child actresses should be included in the infobox. You're supporting what it is that we're doing right now. Nothing more. I'm not asking you to support the actions that we're doing right now, but supports your reasons behind including the child actors in the infobox. livelikemusic my talk page! 23:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's accurate information!!! Have you not been paying attention???Cebr1979 (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need use use excessive exclamation, with shows slight civility conflicts. I provided guidelines that would support the exclusion of them in the infobox, due to their inability to provide the notability of the character in a real-world context; you've yet to provide a guideline that supports the inclusion. I will be waiting for another soap editors that have been pinged to this discussion to bring forth their expertise advisement to this discussion. livelikemusic my talk page! 23:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I will be waiting for another soap editors that have been pinged to this discussion to bring forth their expertise advisement to this discussion." So I can't edit an article without you or other "expert" editors giving the okay? You know you just basically said that my info is not to be considered "expert" which is bullying the newbie and you also basically said that I can;t make edits until you or other editors give the okay with is total OWNING... Shall we take this to a site admin now?Cebr1979 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. That's NOT what I'm saying. I never once mentioned your editing skills, or the intentions of them in the discussion. I was merely saying I was waiting for other editors to bring their expertise in the editing field of soap articles into the discussion. It is not owning of anything; it is leaving the discussion to other editors to enter into and provide their thoughts based on what's given, and for them to either provide more guidelines to resolve the conflict. livelikemusic my talk page! 23:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's wait for your expert editors then. Although, none of you get the final say. You do realise that, right? None of you own the page. None of you have any right to remove accurate information from an encyclopedia entry.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that the duration dates for the character (added to the INFOBOX by YOU) would be extremely misleading without the previous actors listed. Otherwise, it would (extremely incorrectly) lead others to assume that Jen Lilley had been in the role since the 1990s.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I added "(2013–)" to provide more clarification after such was pointed out on other articles following personal research, etc. livelikemusic my talk page! 00:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why it would have been nice if you had also added the previous actors' names. Oh, well. "Better late than never" as they say.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My stance on why they were not included has been stated. livelikemusic my talk page! 00:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And so has my stance on why they were.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You constantly reverting any edit I may make to this article shows you owning the page for your own personal preference. Notes are put in place for visitors to read. And there would be no "," after and. livelikemusic my talk page! 00:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you are the one constantly reverting my edit (which you do to almost everyone on almost every page you edit - anyone can go there and see the edit history). Secondly, please brush up on your punctuation usage as there most definitely would be a comma before and after "most prominently."Cebr1979 (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep... I just double checked this page's edit history and EVERY SINGLE EDIT done by myself in the last two days, YOU have REVERTED. Who's owning what now???Cebr1979 (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some edits? Yes. Every single one? No. I've reverted a few with explanations as to why they were done. But to say every single edit was reverted is false and libelous. And that's the final statements I'll make in this discussion until other editors gain in the conversation, as I refuse to allow both sides to bait and bite each other. livelikemusic my talk page! 01:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, every single one. Go have a look-see!Cebr1979 (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first comment in this section says that all actresses who have portrayed the character should be listed. That is not correct because articles do not exhaustively list anything—each item has to be WP:DUE. Please stop debating whether one editor has reverted all the edits by another editor. What matters is a proposed edit, and that is what should be discussed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: So what would you recommend happen? livelikemusic my talk page! 21:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't exhaustively list everybody who ever played this role. If there was a person who played the role in a minor capacity, that person's portrayal might merit a mention deeper in the article. If it's a single appearance, it's possible that mentioning that portrayal is not appropriate at all in this article, rather than in an article about that actress (presuming there is one). Infoboxes, however, are a bit of an oddity. It says "portrayed by" not "significant portrayals by" or the like. It would probably be incorrect to list exactly one person. After all, it's common enough for soap characters to be portrayed by more than one person, and even a short appearance may be noteworthy; if we had an article on Christina Crawford's character in The Secret Storm, it's likely that Joan Crawford's portrayal of that character in four episodes would be significant enough to merit listing it in the infobox, and certainly in the article itself. In short, what may need to be done here is more of a standardization of the infobox itself, than dealing with this at the level of a single article, since I think it's inaccurate to not provide a full- or close-to-full list of actors/actresses who portrayed a character in an infobox that explicitly says "portrayed by" (i.e., implying completeness). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mendaliv. I agree.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The proposal is that the general matter should be discussed at a wikiproject or infobox talk page. There is no reason this article should have requirements that are different from similar pages. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right you are. Someone should open such a discussion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I will open the discussion, and will specify the examples of GA's in the discussion as I did such here. livelikemusic my talk page! 00:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like Johnuniq and Mendaliv, I agree that the child actors may be listed in the infobox if it is WP:Due. Whether or not the actor is notable for the portrayal is not the best criteria to go by, however, at least not solely. But in the case of infants, like I stated here at WP:SOAPS, I don't see why the infant actors need to be in the infobox; they usually are not considered to have portrayed the role. Including them there is clutter and sort of a pretense as to their impact on the role. There would have to be something notable about the infant as the character for me to agree that infants should be included. The discussion of the infants or others who are WP:Undue for the infobox can be discussed in the lower body of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content[edit]

Removing the content is removing her discussing her part as Theresa; she even mentions DAYS in the post. It is information about her role as Theresa, not in The Book of Esther. livelikemusic my talk page! 20:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said my edit was unexplained and it was explained. Clearly. Extremely clearly, in fact. Right there for you to see (in fact you would have had to have seen it prior to reverting my edit so you knew it was explained when you said it wasn't). Also, my explanation is valid: The actress talking about how she got to be on some other show/film has no relevance to Theresa Donovan character page. I moved it to the Jenn Lilley actress page (which I also explained).Cebr1979 (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you are accusing me of something; as I explained the quote was about her joining Days of Our Lives. The quote discussed her signing her contract and that there was sex on the show. It was about Theresa, not her Book of Esther character, since she specifically mentions DAYS itself in the quote. livelikemusic my talk page! 20:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article specifically states "Jen Lilley on 'The Book of Esther': 'God Has a Plan for Each One of Us'" not Days.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article came from her being interviewed for the film, and she then discussed her joining Days of Our Lives. Visit the reference and see for yourself. livelikemusic my talk page! 20:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to dispute resolution if you feel so inclined.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ::::That is the mere title of the article, but please see the FULL quote:

"I'm going to be on "Days of Our Lives," and just began filming. That opportunity came from the Lord. I prayed and fasted to decide whether I would accept the role or not, but this is the one that I was to take. I had other offers, and they all fell through, so I'm grateful that I took the opportunity to be on "Days." At the time, I asked for certain things in my contract that people said would be impossible. But I stood on my faith, and against all odds, I got those things. I daily pray for God to help me be a peacekeeper and help me through my scenes; my character is so evil that it's just unlike me. And obviously there is a lot of sex on the show. When the time comes, I'm going to use it as an opportunity to show abstinence, which I fully believe in. I don't understand how my friends can do things in this industry without faith. I can't do things without prayer." livelikemusic my talk page! 20:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't like your history of reverting under false pretenses (or none at all). You said my removal was unexplained but, it was and you knew that when you said it. Looks we have a dispute that needs resolving, take it there if you want.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop commenting of what I knew or not. That violates the terms of WP:PERSONAL. I merely chose a response that popped up under the automatic filtering of my web browser and added upon it. livelikemusic my talk page! 20:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more careful in the future. Perhaps more time and care before reverting next time.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dump, or at least paraphrase, the massive quote. I don't think it's particularly needed as it is. What would be nice is to retain the date of Lilley's on-screen debut. As to whether Lilley's debut in The Book of Esther doesn't belong... I think Cebr1979 may be correct insofar as the debut doesn't really have an effect on the character. It may be relevant for putting the source in context, but I don't think that's particularly necessary. The information within the quote may be relevant: it seems Lilley wanted special contract terms. There may be other coverage of that. It should be researched, and if significant, mentioned. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mendaliv.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statement of Lilley's involvement in Esther was removed; it was only included because it was part of the interview, for which she also mentioned her casting in Days of Our Lives. The date of Lilley's debut was never disputed, either. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then I would support leaving the quotation out unless research reveals something interesting about Lilley's contract details, or perhaps if it comes out that Lilley's personal religious affiliation is commented on as being relevant to her role. Otherwise this sounds settled. I do think you both might want to look into that contract details thing. If I were to stumble across this article randomly, that would be something I would find very interesting to read about, rather than discussion of the character or other in-universe matters. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Networks don't discuss contracts, etc. That's why Jen's quote is included; she says she requested things in her contract that others said (according to her) would be impossible. And it's inclusion is relevant to the casting of Lilley in the role. livelikemusic my talk page! 23:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily true, and other sources in the media might say something: you should try researching it. If they don't, it's probably not relevant. Anyway, without anything else, this quote isn't particularly relevant or useful in fleshing out the context of the character. It might be a bit interesting if Lilley's religious views influence the show in some way documented in reliable sources. And yes, while that does take time, our policies are pretty clear on the verifiability requirement. While I don't often bandy about the term, including the quote is bordering on cruft. If you can't paraphrase it in five to eight words, ditch the entire thing. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it wouldn't be openly discussed; in the soap universe, the most we know (at best) about contracts is the length of time a contract is signed for. Isn't it stating that because of her views did negate in the prospect of her signing the contract? Especially since she states that her character is "so much unlike" herself as an actress, wouldn't that be important to the casting of the role of Theresa with Lilley in the role? As it feels as if, from how it's read, the role might not have been taken if those requests had not been honored by the series and Sony. Let's say that Lilley denied the contract because her requests were denied; would it then be considered something of a reliable piece of casting information? And if so, why then? I'm just trying to fully understand what you're saying, that's all. livelikemusic my talk page! 00:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then we need to wait for reliable sources to say that stuff. That she says it's important to her makes it perhaps important to her (though we could probably find better sources if we wanted to discuss her religious beliefs or personal ethics). Should one of the parties go on to breach the contract, and some dispute ensues, I would agree with you that some mention would be appropriate at that time, and in the context of a discussion of the dispute more generally. Until then... Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Mendaliv. Those are all reasons why I felt the quote would be better suited on Jen Lilley (the actress) page.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the full quote, I agree with livelikemusic that it has relevancy to the Theresa Donovan article; she is speaking about accepting the role and comparing herself to the character; that type of material is certainly relevant to her portrayal of the character, and is common in character articles. But it is probably best to do like Mendaliv suggested and paraphrase it. Flyer22 (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theresa_Donovan&oldid=1204992141"