Jump to content

Talk:Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald/Archive 1

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

Jane Winthrop redirect

Why, exactly, does Jane Winthrop redirect here? All of the other Passions children have their own pages, and Jane is just as significant, if not moreso, than them; for two years, Jane was at the center of the Theresa/Gwen feuds. I fail to see how she is any less significant than, say, Maria Lopez-Fitzgerald or Miles Harris-Crane. - Charity 04:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a decision made a few months prior via consensus. Jane has no storyline that cannot be found at another page; until she does, the previous Wiki consensus that she does not need her own page should stand because it was the ruling the last time this issue came up. More and more soap children are being merged simply because they don't have storylines on their own. D'Amico 07:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
And where did this voting and consensus take place? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'd just like to read through the voting process and everything. - Charity 13:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I can find some references in July of 2007 to the conversation, but nothing further back than that. Most of the soap children listed don't really meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion; they're just there. D'Amico 06:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Name

Why exactly is Theresa's last name not Crane, but Lopez-Fitzgerald. It has been stated numerous times and apart of the NBC Passions website that Theresa is listed as Theresa Crane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustAugust (talk • contribs) 14:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Theresa's "death" in Mexico

There has been no conclusive evidence that Theresa died in Mexico, and all indications are that she will return very much alive in the near future -- Dougie WII (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Theresa was a ghost and ascended into heaven; her bloody shirt was found, and Luis and the Mexican authorities had her declared legally dead. Spoilers aside, Theresa is, for all intents and purposes, as dead as Antonio. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Antonio has been dead for years, Theresa has been missing for maybe an hour or two of story time, I think it's a big difference. However, you are correct that at the moment she's at least missing and presumed dead at least on-screen. -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Surname

Theresa is still married to Alistair; it only makes sense that she would have gone back to Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane after finding out that her marriage to Ethan was invalid. I'm aware that NBC.com lists Theresa's surname as Lopez-Fitzgerald, but it also lists Sheridan's surname as Crane-Lopez-Fitzgerald within her article (and misspells Boothe in the URL), lists Marty as being deceased, and claims that Gwen is unable to have children. NBC.com isn't completely up-to-date. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Try and understand the concept of the policy WP:Common names and what people call her, just like people call him Bill Clinton and not William Jefferson Clinton, anyone looking her up with look for Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald sans Crane. I've been watching since day 1 and never called her "Crane." As for the uninformed comment of NBC being not updated, you're wrong. They even have new-Miguel picture. And if you really think about it if she's been Crane for all this time and they have new Miguel, then they would get it right. Obviously you need to understand the WP:V policy and since NBC owns Passions, they are the definitive answer regardless of your personal opinion. Fact is when all is said and done at the end of the day Wikipedia relies on verifiability and per the official site, she is only Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald which is what her article here should be.KellyAna (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow. If you would re-read what I wrote, I said that NBC.com isn't COMPLETELY up-to-date. I noticed that Paloma and Miguel's pages have been updated to include the re-casted actors, but, as I also noted, NBC has failed to update several character biographies, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that they also failed to update Theresa's name — the closing Passions credits actually list Lindsay Hartley as playing "Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane Casey Winthrop".
It is also not unreasonable to believe that Theresa might be better known as Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane — she's been using the Crane name since she married Alistair in October 2005, and she used the Crane name for at least the final year of her "marriage" to Julian, so she's been Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane for nearly half of the show's run. Just because you think of her as being Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald does not mean that all viewers do so. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane is probably the best name to use; people are still referring to her as Mrs. Crane on screen. For what it's worth, the rolling closing credits at the end of the show as of March 4 list her as "Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane Casey Winthrop." They need to use a smaller font to fit all that in lol. -- Dougie WII (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You can "think" what you want but where's your proof? Your change is about opinion, mine is about facts and the fact that NBC owns the character and lists her as only Lopez-Fitzgerald. Even in the credits she is not listed as just Crane. Opinion is fine, but encyclopedias are based on verifiable facts. FACT. Wikipedia policy is WP:V, what is verifiable. I have provided facts that indicate, by the OWNERS of the SHOW, that they consider her Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald. And listing on the official show site trumps "seen on screen." KellyAna (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think the show itself trumps the show's related website? As I said before the show itself the last time it listed credits for Theresa, (March 4, 2008), lists the character in its credits as "Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane Casey Winthrop," I can post a screen shot of it if you want. -- Dougie WII (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't. Wikipedia POLICY is verifiable proof and "seen on screen" is not verifiable. As a matter of fact it's considered "in universe" and is the last source to be used. Face it, shows change facts all the time. That's why there are official sources that are to be used for reference and nothing in the policy says "use the television" instead of using verifiable proof. Even IMDB, which agrees with my information, isn't a usable source. This, again, isn't about preference, it's about policy of verifiability. It's about fact, not opinion. KellyAna (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course it's verifiable, the episodes are available for subscription download from NBC and most likely registered in the Library of Congress for copyright registration. I have submitted this to move requests for a better consensus though rather than engaging in an edit war with you. -- 15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You are not understanding the concept of verifiable. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with policy. Having to pay to verify is not acceptable. KellyAna (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Paid subscriptions news websites are all the time deemed to be reliable sources all over Wikipedia. I don't see why this would be any different. -- Dougie WII (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Do YOU understand the meaning of verifiable? The SHOW'S CREDITS are a LEGAL CONTRACT between the ACTOR AND THE SHOW? If it weren't for those credits, anyone could say they played Theresa on PASSIONS, or that Lindsay played Theresa as a guest star. That is her character's name, officially. Leaving all of her last names in there is to make her the Erica Kane of the show, so to speak. That DOESN'T MEAN that she never held the name Crane. She OBVIOUSLY did or people wouldn't call her Theresa CRANE. If you want to leave her common name without it, that's understandable to some, because she doesn't even like Alistair, but to not acknowledge that she once legally held the name AND used it, after it's been in the credits and is used for her ON THE SHOW, then I don't know what to say other than you're really, really wrong. Jessica was married to Spike, but her name was never legally changed. Theresa's WAS, or she wouldn't have been able to use her power as a Crane to get her kids back and the entire storyline would have been pointless. She used the Crane name. Also, the NBC site is NOT A CANONICAL source for information, ONLY the show itself is. They have misspellings galore, let alone the fact that the old actor who plays Miguel and all of the DirecTV fired actors are STILL listed under the actors tab. AND the fact that the show airs on DirecTV, meaning NBC's website is already misrepresentative without going into any further details, and no doubt, no one at NBC cares anymore about updating the PASSIONS page. Alexisfan07 9 March 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 01:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No personal attacks. Please leave your comments why you feel the page should stay or move in the appropriate section on the bottom. KellyAna (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Consensus I think this is a great example of why consensus should be important here, changing the surname of a character is a big thing, I truly believe members of a project group who, I think we all agree are trying to improve these articles in good faith, should put that above being so wp:bold that we end up in a neverending edit war. Other members of our small group may have different opinions. -- Dougie WII (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe that Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane fits with the guidelines more than the deprecated Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald that hasn't been her name in years. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Your belief fails verifiability which is also policy. If people go to NBC, home of Passions, they won't know about the Crane portion. FYI, deprecated is commonly used as a computer term (adj.) Used typically in reference to a computer language to mean a command or statement in the language that is going to be made invalid or obsolete in future versions. The use is misleading. KellyAna (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the current consensus seems to be, but why not just keep the article as "Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald" and have the opening paragraph start with "Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane"? Several soap articles have been named after the character's maiden name for this exact reason (the constant marrying and remarrying). The name of the article isn't necessarily asserting marital status, and since all the redirects are in place, no one will have problems getting to the article. — TAnthonyTalk 17:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea. It seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise, and it doesn't affect the article's accuracy. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
HOLY CRAP!! That's been my point all along. KellyAna (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I oppose this because it is factually incorrect and is not her name. Why should we name her something that she doesn't use? I have put a question into WT:V about this too since KellyAna seems to think no paid program can be verifiable. -- Dougie WII (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, please point to where I said "no paid program can be verified" otherwise don't put words in my mouth that I haven't even thought let alone said. KellyAna (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course you did on this page: You are not understanding the concept of verifiable. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with policy. Having to pay to verify is not acceptable. KellyAna (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC). Dougie WII (talk)
You said I claimed to think no paid program can be verifiable. I never said such a thing and your quote of me is not reflective of saying a "paid program" can or cannot be verifiable. What I said is you can't require people to pay to be able to test the verifiability of an article, i.e. "paying to download" something, or going to Washington to the Library of Congress. I did not say just because a program is broadcast only on a particular carrier it was unable to be verified. You cannot put words in others' mouths, as you attempted. Again, I never said paid programs can't be verified. I said you can't require someone to pay to see verifiable information. Free information must exist under verifiability. This does not mean it has to be online, just available to the public. KellyAna (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
That is completely untrue. See WT:V#Television programs, especially paid -- Dougie WII (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you might be overthinking it a bit; we're not calling her "Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Moskowitz," her maiden name is her maiden name. Why does it have to be the exact name she may or may not be using at the exact moment, especially when the sources all conflict? And, I might add, this is just a fictional character, I am ill thinking about the time, bandwith and server cycles wasted on this issue. — TAnthonyTalk 21:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
So basically the policy now is to use the name of a character unless KellyAna changes it to whatever she wants? -- Dougie WII (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
All I am saying is, I like to choose my battles, and this is just not worth all the drama. In this case, the article has an adequate name and (presumably) would need an assisted move to change — is the change that important? Maybe it can just wait a bit, perhaps a source everyone can agree upon will pop up at some point. — TAnthonyTalk 02:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure everything in the above comment is helpful in de-escalating this dispute. Can everyone here please take a look at their comments, and delete/refactor anything which could be considered uncivil or a personal attack? I'd like to see if we could get discussions back onto a more civil footing. --Elonka 04:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
So basically you're saying we should come up with a hierarchy of source importance? If so, I agree with that. I think it's obvious that the hierarchy of importance of sources for the name of the character should be:
  1. The show itself (i.e. what the characters call themselves and each other on screen)
  2. The opening or closing credits on the show
  3. The show's website
  4. Third party websites, such as soaps.com, etc.
In this case, it's clear from #1 that Theresa's surname is indeed Crane, the only reason to move on would be if that primary source contradicts itself which it clearly does not. KellyAna's whole argument is based on what's seen on screen is not verifiable, but according the guidance from WT:V and WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard, that's simply not true so her entire argument falls apart. -- Dougie WII (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald → Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane —(move)—(Discuss)— Move back to character's married legal name used on screen. Credits also use the "Crane" last name as well as others, argument that NBC's website is the final authority is weak. —Dougie WII (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC) (Discuss)-- Dougie WII (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


  • Support as nominator -- As long as Theresa continues to use the surname "Crane" on-screen that should be the canonical name we use on Wikipedia. -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Commment - the nominator is the last say so you just have to wait but then again, others have agreed that sans Crane is appropriate. KellyAna (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • Oppose - ending credits change repeated and vary quite often. The official site, NBC, states her name as Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald and links to that site are referenced within the article. "As seen on screen" is not verifiable proof. Arguments of "it's probably registered" are assumptions with no ability to verify. There is also policy precident in WP:Common names and assuming that Crane is her common name when even the creating television station doesn't recognize it as such is an assumption with no basis in fact. The ending credits change and even include two other names. While IMDB isn't considered reliable, even it only lists her as Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald. KellyAna (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I still don't see how you so easily dismiss the fact that everyone calls her Mrs. Crane on screen. This is an article about a television show, not an article about a website about a television show as you seem to believe. -- Dougie WII (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Even though the NBC website lists Theresa's surname as Lopez-Fitzgerald, the NBC website also lists Sheridan's surname as Crane-Lopez-Fitzgerald, despite the fact that Antonio died nearly four years ago and she's been married to Chris for two years, and it also claims that Marty is dead and Gwen is barren, both of which were proven to be untrue on September 7. Furthermore, the fact that the Passions closing credits, which I would imagine would have to be approved by someone with authority over the show, list Theresa's surname as something different entirely (Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane Casey Winthrop) indicates that NBC is NOT the ultimate authority here. Finally, with regards to WP:COMMONNAME, Theresa was "married" to Julian for one-and-a-half years, during which time she used his surname, and she's been married to Alistair for two-and-a-half years; even when Alistair was presumed deceased and she was married to Jared, she continued to use the Crane name along with Casey. The fact that she has used the Crane name for nearly half of the soap's run and the fact that Theresa's marriage to Alistair, especially, has played a huge role in storylines since October 2005 leads me to conclude that Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane IS Theresa's common name. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Couldn't have said it better myself. -- Dougie WII (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment the links you provided contradict one another. In the character LIST of characters, which is the definitive answer to what the show calls the character, shows Sheridan to be "Sheridan Crane-Booth" not Lopez-Fitzgerald. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not about "right" or "wrong" but what is verifiable. Per the NBC site, it is verifiable that Theresa is Lopez-Fitzgerald. It's is also about the policy of WP:Common names which is being ignored. This is not about "emotions" of editors but policy and verifiable facts.KellyAna (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment And the character list is the definitive answer why? It even spells "Boothe" incorrectly. One may be able to go to the NBC website and verify that Theresa is listed as Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald there, but the NBC site, as I've shown, is not completely reliable. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)Reply As the show owner, NBC has the ultimate final say. Again, this is solely about Wikipedia verifiability policy. They could say Gwen is green and the article would have to reflect that. What is "seen on screen" can be open to interpretation. Take the sex between Alister and Theresa. Some may say it was rape. Others may say it was simply sex between a husband and wife. Because it's subject to interpretation, it is not a valid source. This is about policy, not emotion. Policy says verifiable, not "what you know is right because you saw it on screen." In a matter of months "on screen" won't even be an option. By the way, regarding the Gwen and her being barren comment, no one ever saw her pregnant, did they? Again, this leaves Jonathan's birth circumstances left to opinion and not fact and definitely not "seen on screen." KellyAna (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply I'm not making this about emotion, so please stop accusing me of doing so. First of all, your example about the intercourse between Alistair and Theresa is a poor example — there is a fine line between consensual sex and rape, but you cannot argue interpretation when Theresa is blatantly referred to as Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane, Mrs. Crane, etc. Secondly, placing verifiability above what any rational person knows to be true — e.g. Gwen being green — is highly irresponsible and why the cardinal rule of Wikipedia is to ignore all rules. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment We should be able to use Crane in her formerly married names for the time being, until this is resolved, as she was OBVIOUSLY using the name before. Alexisfan07 9 March 2008
This is not the place for comments like that. This is a formal discussion regarding the move of this page. Please keep it as such. KellyAna (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, under current conditions. In all fairness, KellyAna is technically correct that we should go with the most reliable, verifiable source. No source is 100% accurate or reliable, but the fact that other things at NBC.com are outdated or inaccurate doesn't really matter. I personally feel like "Crane" is fine and is unlikely to be challenged or cause a problem, but technically ... The only way a "seen on screen" approach could potentially work is by uploading a screencap of the credit and putting it in the article, but of course that would make the name change worse! And you know what, I can assure you that show staffers aren't considering the continuity and accuracy of names in the credits the same way we might, they're most concerned with spelling mistakes. And even then, I've got a screencap or two of blatant typos that aired. — TAnthonyTalk 02:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm willing to go the route of screen cap of "Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane Casey Winthrop". It is more accurate than simply "Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald". -- Dougie WII (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL, me and my big mouth — that's what I meant by "worse," that extended name is horrible. — TAnthonyTalk 13:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

thumb|left|Passions credit as discussed; reduced for space, click to view. Note: Image must be removed once discussion is over per fair use gudelines.

  • Comment I can deal with leaving the article at TLF, especially if the alternative is listing every single married name; my opposition is more toward the assumption that Theresa's common name is Lopez-Fitzgerald when she's been Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane nearly as long and the idea that NBC.com should be the paramount source of information about Passions. NBC.com is an invaluable resource, but no resource is infalliable, and it should be treated as such. I know that KellyAna was being facetious with the "Gwen is green" example, but, seriously, if NBC.com says that Theresa married Chris when we have transcripts and summaries that prove that she really married Jared, to change the article to say that she married Chris would be counterproductive. Like Dougie said earlier, these pages are about a soap opera, not a website about a soap opera.
As for the Theresa article, wherever it ends up, I at least feel like the intro should read Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane with a footnote explaining the whole NBC.com situation. Theresa is still married to Alistair, and she's still been using his name and the Crane money and power, whether it's her common name or not. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A one time screen cap is irrelevant and shouldn't be considered as it is not verifiable per Wikipedia policy. This is a policy discussion, and screen caps aren't listed as verifiable sources. KellyAna (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

thumb|right|Passions credit as discussed; reduced for space, click to view. Note: Image must be removed once discussion is over per fair use gudelines.

  • This is NOT a one-time screen shot, but what is shown on-screen every time the character comes up in the credits. Here (right) is a new screenshot from today's episode (March 11, 2008). If you don't have either DirecTV or an online NBC Passions subscription to verify these things yourself, I honestly don't understand why you have any business editing these articles. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the extended name should be used, but theoretically if an image is somehow incorporated into an article with the date noted, I think it's as verifiable as anything else. I mean, it photographic evidence. But in this case it really doesn't prove anything in the TLF vs. TLF Crane issue. — TAnthonyTalk 20:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I've started a discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Screen_caps_of_end_credits regarding the screen cap issue. I find the fact that the screen cap presented isn't even relevant to the discussion since it doesn't back the argument to be problematic. KellyAna (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you're opening up a can of worms the same way I think IrishLass did when suggesting that SoapCentral isn't a reliable source; you're going to eliminate all sources except perhaps the show websites, which we know aren't always accurate either. And are you suggesting that the credits contain different information between the network and SOAPNet rebroadcasts? I don't understand your objection except that in this case you feel like it's going against your position. — TAnthonyTalk 20:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Pairadox started the soapcentral.com discussion, not IrishLass. Why are you blaming her and not Pairadox? As for them as a source, I think they suck too. I started the discussion because it's true, YES, they are different between Soap Net, NBC, and even Global (Canadian television). One day NBC said "Sami Brady" and Soap Net said "Samantha Roberts." I also know screen caps can be doctored, they are just a picture and photoshop is a glorious thing. KellyAna (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of doctoring this image? -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think KellyAna is suggesting that, her argument is whether or not the images in general are reliable because they can be doctored. — TAnthonyTalk 01:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to assign any "blame," I guess I didn't have to mention any editors at all, Irishlass just had one memorable comment in that discussion in which she was basically saying the site was unreliable because they'd used the wrong name in a summary, etc. In any case, I think we can agree that every source is going to differ here or there, although I'm a little surprised (and yet somehow not) at the NBC/SoapNet discrepancy you mention. And let's not go there about PhotoShop! I think we can perhaps agree that an official website is most reliable (despite errors) without trashing every other possible source. I think you may find one of them useful later in other cases when the show site is wrong. — TAnthonyTalk 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I guess it doesn't matter now since it has now been lifted, but wasn't this move made when there was a temporary injunction against moving/redirecting articles? -- Dougie WII (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply That "temporary injunction" doesn't cover this. It covers merges and deletions not to mention this was a move BACK to the original article title. KellyAna (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, look, it is a better picture of the previous screen cap. Is it supposed to prove anything other than my point that screen caps are unreliable? KellyAna (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh look, confusing a screenshot from March 4 with one from March 11 only reveals your own ignorance. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
And the proof that they are from two different days are where? It's not ignorance (lovely personal attack AGAIN), it's fact that there's no proof what so ever what date those shots are from. It is IMPOSSIBLE to show proof of what day a screen shot is from. IMPOSSIBLE!! KellyAna (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The proof is that it's a verifiable screen cap. As per the guidance from WT:V#Television programs, especially paid screencaps are verifiable and completely acceptable as reliable sources, even if from paid subscription web sites. -- Dougie WII (talk)

Is this ever going to be resolved by the powers-that-be? -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume by "the powers that be" you mean those at Passions. Or are you talking about something else? KellyAna (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The situation has already been resolved by those who make Passions. Her name is Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane or alternatively Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane Casey Winthrop. The one thing that's crystal clear is that her name is not simply Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald, no matter how stubborn one who disagrees is. -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
And the ones who OWN Passions list her without Crane. Verifiable fact, the NBC site says Lopez-Fitzgerald. You still haven't answered the question. By powers-that-be do you mean here at Wiki or at Passions? Your comment was very random. KellyAna (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, this is an article about a television drama, not an article about a website. What is seen on screen is both verifiable and senior to anything on the website. -- Dougie WII (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
So you aren't going to answer the question asked. Okay then. I'll stop trying to understand what you want. KellyAna (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

More proof

As of March 25, 2008 Passions has changed its credits to show "Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane" as her canonical name. Since this is a change to a new name n the credits, I can't see how anyone could contradict this!

200px

This should be the end of any debate, I will be bold and rename this myself. -- Dougie WII (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't end anything. That could be completely photoshopped. Page goes by proof and consensus. Consensus has been it stays sans Crane. You are the only one still insisting it be moved. Even the move page has it noted as contested. KellyAna (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
And why is it three editors say it stays and you say move so you are right when obvious consensus is it stays? Moving it goes against what's been decided on this page so it's against consensus and any admin can see that based on discussion where three people say "leave the page here". KellyAna (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious where the proof that this is really from March 25 is. And this contradicts the other screen cap and proves even Passions can't make up their minds. It's not proof to anything other than only one source is consistent and that's the NBC site, because it's obviously not the show's credit department. KellyAna (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said on my talk page, I believe that an argument can be made that Theresa's common name is Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane and not just Lopez-Fitzgerald, but, ultimately, leaving the page at Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald isn't going to hinder the article in any way as long as we note in the opening paragraph that her name is legally Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am protecting the page from any further moves, for a period of one week. Please use this time to build consensus on talk for how things should be handled. --Elonka 03:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[[:Image:Theresa-Memorial-Sign.jpg|thumb|left|200px|Screenshot of Theresa's memorial plaque from April 1, 2008]] Theresa's full name was shown in text in the main body of the program as a memorial plaque at her "funeral" or memorial ceremony, adding further evidence to what her real name is in the show at this point. -- Dougie WII (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued discussion from User talk:TAnthony

The flowing is copied from User talk:TAnthony, starting here and ending here. — TAnthonyTalk 02:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that show credits have been changed to Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane. An arbitration request has been filed here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to bother, it's been rejected. KellyAna (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
One person voted that, it hasn't been rejected. Why do you continue to lie? -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You DID NOT accuse me of lying. That's incivility. Nice to have something to report you for. KellyAna (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
How about you NOT accuse me of Photoshopping a television screenshot? -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
What I have REPEATEDLY said was that screen caps CAN be photoshopped and WHERE is the proof of WHEN the screen cap was taken. You really need to start to understand the difference. Those two statements are NOT outright accusing someone of lying, it's questioning verifiability which is the heart of Wikipedia. You, however, insist on repeated attacks. I've reported you, so keep it up, the more evidence I have the easier it is to prove your actions. KellyAna (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Why can't you understand that it's WP policy that such screenshots are verifiable and more accurate than anything on an old website? -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Because you've shown NO NO NO proof of that claim. As for "old web site" it's the site that owns the show, not some random site from nowhere. And when you have three shots that contradict each other, they invalidate each other and the owner of the show becomes the definitive.KellyAna (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 25#Television programs, especially paid -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am somewhat torn on this issue. On the one hand, the screencap is obviously real and honestly, bringing Photoshop into it is sort of silly. The multiple images don't "contradict" each other, the latest one is just an update. I think I'm convinced her name should include the "Crane" because all "evidence" seems to indicate that the NBC site is just haphazardly updated. HOWEVER, putting my personal ideas aside, if KellyAna is going to hold fast to her side of the argument, I am inclined to agree with her on a technicality — not because I don't believe the screencap, but because I'm not so sure about the image being used this way. The whole idea of a Surname "section" is pretty trivial, and illustrating a trivial sentence with an image seems to be pushing the limits of fair use. And if the image has no place being there, then ... I know it seems silly, the image exists and it spells out the name and yet I'm hesitant to accept it as "proof." I've been thinking about this issue and it's a tricky one, I haven't really seen this kind of thing done. I never got an answer about my last question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Screen caps of end credits, I was hoping there'd be some precedent somewhere. To be verifiable, information doesn't have to be available online, it just has to be verifiable within the realm of possibility — I could turn on the show tomorrow and watch the credits. However, I cannot turn on my TV and watch the episode from two weeks ago Thursday. Is that technically unverifiable? Someone could watch the episode, an NBC employee with access to the tapes or a viewer who has it in the TiVo, or perhaps someone with online access to the series. I don't know the answer.

I think to an outsider with no knowledge of the show, the NBC site would be considered the most verifiable source, even if we contradicted it with soap magazines and the image. But I tend to think that we haven't gotten more interest from the Notability Police because it is sort of a trivial thing, a big deal over a fictional character's married name. I know that you both (Dougie and KellyAna) are on exact opposite sides and neither of you seems to want to "give in," but I'm hoping someone will realize that this really doesn't matter and is not worth all the discussion and contention.

  • Dougie, does it irk you that much that "Crane" isn't there? Maiden names are commonly used for soap characters because of constant marriages, is it that big a deal? She's not real, there is no legal document to settle the argument. And she'll probably remarry at some point anyway.
I'd back down in a second if anyone on the show refers to her as Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald, but that hasn't happened in a very long time. She's always called Theresa Crane or Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • KellyAna, forgetting the verifiability issue for a second, I think we all know the image is real, we know the character has called herself Crane and thus we can assume the Crane probably does belong, despite what the site says. Do you really think it is a huge deal to allow it? Do you really feel like anyone will challenge it or that it is some tremendous violation?

I'd love to get some other opinions on this from beyond the soap world, there are many issues at play here. — TAnthonyTalk 06:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NAME, the title of the article should be the most commonly-used name for the subject. How are the soap magazines referring to her? --

Elonka 06:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the name she uses onscreen and the name that appears in the show's credits. Here are three soap-related pages that use that name as well:
- All of these contailn Crane -- Dougie WII (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Soaps.com and soapcentral.com are fan sites. The "as seen on tv" is a marketplace, not an official anything. And SOW and SOD are owned by the same company but have different names for her. Interesting argument though, glad I'm not involved. TAnthony, good luck, from what I've seen, you're going to need it. IrishLass (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is a link from the NBC.com site itself that uses her full name:

Third opinion

There was a pending request for a third opinion on here. First off, there's more than two editors active on here, so technically a third opinion shouldn't have been requested. I consider this request light WP:CANVASSing, and I think that since there's consensus here to leave the page where it is, that should be the end of it. Dougie, if you're still that worked up about this, start an WP:RFC or something. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Dougie intended to canvas the way you are suggesting; we definitely need some more input though, perhaps an RfC would be helpful. I hate to bother people with a small matter such as this, but at least we may get some helpful information for future situations. — TAnthonyTalk 02:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Dougie's been warned about Canvassing but still insists on doing it. He's been running around all over about this but here's a new twist. What if the rumors are correct? We know Passions is ending within months and the rumors are happy endings all around including Theresa and Ethan. At that point CRANE won't be her name. Why bounce the article every where when the show is within months from ending? A woman's maiden name is always her name. If she ends up marrying Ethan her name will change again. This resistance to leave her as her maiden name is just silly. On soaps women change their names all the time but the MAJORITY of articles stay at the maiden name. This is one of a very few with a minority insisting on moving when majority says don't. KellyAna (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, the show ending on a happy note and assuming that her name won't be Crane isn't an acceptable reason. But I'll remind everyone that if you keep bouncing pages around, at some point everything gets tangled and you need an admin to help sort things out, which may reflect poorly on everyone. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been warned about anything nor have been trying to gin up votes, just notify people of the ongoing discussion who have already been involved in it, plus follow hints from other admins on how to move this forward. Also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Her surname is presently Crane as shown by a multitude of evidence. KellyAna has none that supports her view. -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Look, this is a ridiculous conversation. I see your ArbCom request was denied, so here's my proposed solution:

  1. Leave the article as it is named now. The text within the article clearly explains the discrepancy in the name, so it's not that big of a deal.
  2. Redirect Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald-Crane or whatever you want it to be to this page. That way you cover all your bases.

Wikipedia:Common names#Do not overdo it mentions that in cases where the title of the article is misleading, then it should be clarified. I really don't think that this is a case where the article needs to have the third last name on the end. I also recommend that everyone calms down a whole lot and tries to work towards a reasonable conclusion, because if this case goes higher, you're all going to come under serious scrutiny for your editing behavior.

The only ridiculous thing about this conversation is that I've produced tons of evidence supporting my view while KellyAna has produced almost none, yet people somehow are still coddling her which is something I just don't understand. -- Dougie WII (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
No one is "coddling" her, her argument is just less technically nebulous than yours. We can't fault her for being a stickler for the rules. Like I said, I agree with you on the name in spirit, so if you can find some policy or precedent or consensus on the issues, I'm on board. But honestly, if I was just wandering through articles and came upon this one, I'd feel compelled to remove the image for the reasons I've specified eslewhere. — TAnthonyTalk 19:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like my proposal, that's fine. The next step is WP:RFC. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to simplify the name then get rid of the middle name and keep her legal surname "Crane". -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Also it should be noted that KellyAna started this whole controversy by changing the title herself first on 16:04, March 6, 2008 so if we're to go back to the status quo that would, in fact, be Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane-- Dougie WII (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
When appropriate, I will do whatever necessary to escalate this further. -- Dougie WII (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that an RfC is the best option at this point. Article RfCs are actually quite easy to file (as opposed to the bureaucracy involved with a User Conduct RfC or an ArbCom case). It's usually just one step, once you decide on a category. I would recommend the "Media" category for this page, so just create a section on this page, and add:
 {{RFC error}}
That'll automatically get it listed properly. To see other media RfCs in progress, see WP:RFC/Art. And if you need any other help, just ask. --Elonka 19:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure that "Surname shown to be Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane onscreen, in the show's credits, and in third party sources, yet one editor refuses to accept that that is her name," is the most neutral way to put things. How about "Dispute over how to title article for soap opera character. "Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane" is how her name currently appears in the credits, but she is referred to differently in different sources. Further opinions requested to help break deadlock." --Elonka 21:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Closing RM

Actually anyone can close an RM if there is no consensus, or a consensus not to do anything, but it darn well better be someone who is not involved in the discussion, otherwise people feel pretty much like someone is trying to skew the result. This RM needs to be closed for now and reopened after more progress has been made on making a decision. Keeping it open when it is obvious that "no consensus" has been reached while there is an RFC open is counterproductive. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Theresa's picture

Why can't we leave it as a normal screencap? Wikipedia prefers this. Why does it have to be a promotional shot? No other character has one, and leaving Theresa with one singles her out as being of the utmost importance, which she isn't. She's already listed as the principal protagonist of the show, isn't that enough. Also, the screencap idea is that it could have been taken by anyone, even if we used NBC's cap, but the promotional photograph was taken by a licensed photographer who could sue Wikipedia. Who else is behind changing it back to a screencap? Alexisfan07 9 March 2008

I prefer promotional photos as they're generally of a better quality than screencaps, but it was explained to me that screencaptures are preferred to promotional photographs due to copyright laws, so I've been uploading and preferring screencaps. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I definitely prefer them, too :) But since Wikipedia prefers screencaps, then we should use them for everyone alike. Alexisfan07 9 March 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 02:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Just stop uploading OVER the current photo. It distorts the original image and doesn't change it. KellyAna (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted to the screencap version uploaded previously so that there is no argument. A screencap is Wikipedia policy and no one can argue that. Alexisfan07 9 March 2008
And you have a link to that policy? KellyAna (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is standard and picture size has a standard size. By removing the 1 from the word image and making the picture "your size" it goes against your discussion and desire that you want the article picture standard. Go ask TAnthony about that if you have any questions. KellyAna (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks here. It isn't the place. Also, if you're so concerned, you should do us all a favor and change them all back to the "proper" size. Alexisfan07 9 March 2008
There were none but if you think there are, please, point them out. The statement was fact. TAnthony created the box and I've gone to a lot of pages looking for just such an issue on the pages. Ask him, the 1 is an important part of the box. KellyAna (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

YOU ALL NEED A BREAK! LOL. All this arguing over a minor name change and changing photos and sizes is just getting crazy. I'm hoping for a compromise/happy resolution to the name issue, both ways are unobjectionable and I don't know why tensions are so high over it. And for the record, I'm not aware of a "proper" photo size, but "smaller" is always preferred because fair use images aren't supposed to overpower or be used for decoration. As a matter of fact, the "standard" Wiki photo size (created using "thumb") is even smaller that the one used in the infobox. As far as the infobox, the standard size can be changed if a discussion decides so, but I don't think the difference is a big deal. — TAnthonyTalk 02:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed them all back just for peace's sake. lol. Thanks for interjecting TAnthony. I apologize for my part in the argument! Alexisfan07 9 March 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 03:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theresa_Lopez-Fitzgerald/Archive_1&oldid=202744261"