Talk:Todd Manning/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

So I've moved the content over to article space! Yoo hoo! I will record final thoughts/tasks I think should be accomplished here. Boy, it feels weird to work in actual article space and not in sandboxes.

• You'll notice that I kept the scar and parrot images. I'm willing to see how they fair during FAC. Because we're keeping the scar image, I thought I'd only use one villain Malone compares Todd to because a gallery would be too busy. I chose Gable because of the rapist comparison. I created a gallery of Haskell and Smith. I really wish we had more options for images, although I think that what we have is good. Any more ideas?

• This is the first time I've really looked at the "Further reading" section. I'd like to remove it, since the only source that's worthwhile is the Fineman book. Actually, now that I look at it, we may be able to use it as a source. I'll work on that and see if it has anything to add to the content. At any rate, what do you think about this section?

• "External links" section: I don't think this section is necessary, either, for similar reasons as above. The only link that either works and fits is the Soap Central one, and it doesn't give any new and/or valuable information.

Wow Fly, look at us! By moving everything over this afternoon, we've made a huge accomplishment! We should be so proud! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Although the Todd Manning 101 – SOAPnet.com link could be helpful if, since it's currently a

WP:Dead link, there is an Internet Archive

version of it, I'm fine with removing the External links section. I'm not sure about removing the Further reading section.

Like I stated here, I changed the location of images and removed one because, though I used to usually show variation with image placement, these days...I've usually been placing them on the right, per

WP:Nonfree

; has no sufficient license. A WP:Nonfree image is supposed to significantly enhance readers' understanding of the text and/or have sufficient commentary assisting it. That image, unlike the scar image, does not do that/have that.

Here and here, I cut two

talk

) 14:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm good with your changes. I change my mind about images, too. I put the scar and parrot images on the left because Howarth is facing left, and the Haskell/Smith one on the right because Haskell is looking slightly to the left. I understand about the Easton image. I really wish we had more images to put here, but I suppose that's the nature of the article. So does that mean that we're ready to submit it to FAC? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to address the "Further reading" section. As per

MOS:FURTHER, O'Neil, Miller & Sparks, and Scordari doesn't add to the reader's knowledge about the subject of this article. Feminism, Media, and the Law is now used as a source in this article, and nothing in this section should duplicate what's in the article. That's why I think the section should be removed. Do you know of any source that's about rape in soap operas, or villains, or leading men? I've removed the "External links" section. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk

) 20:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, go ahead and remove the Further reading section. I feel that the second paragraph is currently too big, so I will go ahead and split that up. But, yeah, I guess go ahead and go to WP:Featured article review. Is it the plan that we do everything that the WP:Featured article reviewers tell us to do? I ask because that's the main thing that I hate about these processes (WP:Good article and WP:Featured article reviews); they tell us to jump, and we ask: How high? There are things I might want to debate before we do what they tell us to do. I obviously don't feel like rehashing there the debates we had here, but I'll debate if I feel it's necessary. And do you not want to get a

talk

) 10:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I decided not to split up the second paragraph; this is because of the

talk

) 11:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed section. Yah, that's one of the things I hate about the FAC process, too. When reviewers have nominators jump through hoops just for the sake of it, it doesn't really help improve the article. So much of it feels like busy work, but I still believe that the process is valuable. I suspect that there will be loads of discussion at FAC about Todd, and yes, we'll have to spend time explaining and debating. Fortunately, we've already done it between us two, so we'll be prepared for their arguments. I think that finding a copyeditor on our own is a fine idea. We both have our cabals and posses, so coming up with someone willing to do it shouldn't be difficult. Do you know anyone you trust you'd be willing to ask? I can think of a couple of editors, but since you're more familiar with folks familiar with soap opera articles, I'm willing to use anyone you suggest. At any rate, I agree that we need a copyedit before we submit to FAC. I'm a strong believer in being as prepared for FAC as possible, in order to circumvent debates and to make the process as easy as possible. These days, I have to ask my cabal to review my FACs, because reviewers tend to bypass them because they don't think they know enough about the topic, or because they know that they won't have much to add. I'm happy when an FAC passes with just one nomination, and with few reviewers. One of my FACs passed with just three supports. I'm not saying that this will be as easy, but the more prepared we are, the better. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As you know, I've made more tweaks to the article, including having moved a bit from the Casting and portrayals section to the Characteristics section, and having changed the "Characteristics" heading to "Personality"; as that edit summary states, I changed the heading so that it makes more sense why the scar and hair details are not in that section. I had considered combining the appearance and personality material, but I was reminded (by myself) of our above debates on this material and why we kept it in the places that we did; for example, I wanted to keep the word scar as part of the heading (and I still want that), and keep the scar and hair material as a subsection of the Creation and development section, and you didn't want the Characteristics section to be a subsection of that section; you wanted it to be standalone section. Today, I also considered moving the Characteristics section into the Creation and development section and dividing it up into "Signature scar and hair" and "Personality" or "Personality and appearance, or "Personality and wardrobe," but the scar and hair are also part of his appearance, and, again, I remembered that you wanted the Characteristics section to be a standalone section...and that I didn't want the Creation and development section to look too packed by having subsections of subsections. Plus, there is not much wardrobe information anyway. So, yeah, pretty much the things we've already debated. I decided to change the "Signature scar and hair" heading to "Signature scar, hair and facial cues," since, like you noted before, that section is also about Todd's face. Titling the section that also allowed me to comfortably move the commentary (that was in the Characteristics section) about his face there. It fits better there than in the Personality section. I would have titled it "Signature scar, hair and facial features," but it's more accurate to indicate that it was his facial cues that developed (or worked with what they developed) than to indicate that the creators developed his face; his face obviously already existed.

I'm not sure that we need a copyeditor. I simply felt the need to suggest the idea. I'm not sure who to ask to copyedit the article, if you feel strongly about us going through with that. But I want to take the time to thank you for having come to this article seeking to improve it, and having pushed me to improve it. I shake my head now at the way that I was initially resistant to changing too much about the article. The article is, as you know, much improved thanks to your involvement.

talk

) 21:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

As indicated by this edit, where I tweaked a reference format for consistency, I realized that the article is now using the British setup for the reference dates. I'll roll with it, but is there any reason that you prefer the British setup? Also, as seen here and here, I'm conflicted on whether or not Howarth's take on why Todd raped Marty fits better in the Background section or in the Archetypes and rape section. The reason that I think it fits well in the Background section is because that section (you know, other than the lead) introduces the characters and the rape aspect. This goes well with mentioning Todd and Marty's initial connection -- that they had a one-night stand and she was his tutor -- and then noting the reason for the rape. It's not simply Howarth's opinion that Marty rejects Todd's later romantic advances, that this upsets Todd, festers, and that he decides to get revenge on her after he fails an exam even after she tutored him. This source, which I've used in the

talk

) 07:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with your changes as described directly above; I get your reasoning behind it all and am good with it. I'm glad you think that all this time and effort has been worth it; I certainly think so. I use the British system for reference dates because I try to use VisualEditor as much as I can, and it only accepts the British system. I know the policy states that it doesn't matter what system is used; as long as it's consistent. I've come to personally prefer the British system, but it doesn't matter, although I'm not willing to go back and change it all again. We just need to make sure it's consistent.

Re: a copyeditor: I'm fine with moving straight to FAC at this point. Like I said above, it won't be smooth and I think we should be prepared for it. I'm willing to take point and respond to the comments if you like, although I will name you as my co-nominator. Give me the go-ahead and we'll go for it! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, as you've seen, I've been making more changes to the article, mainly minor changes. If it bothers you that I've been making changes right at the end of this thing (our collaboration), let me know. This is my latest significant edit to the article (with this followup note and this followup edit). I added new sources and pieces from those sources, and readded the Jill Berry sources/commentary you had added to the Todd sandbox. Because it's such vital material on Todd's personality/relationships, I've changed my mind on including it and I now feel that we should take our chances on it regarding what WP:Featured article reviewers might state about using those About.com sources. Berry is a well-known soap opera commentator, after all, and using her sources to cite her opinions should be fine. But, as you can see, I kept away from adding any more mediabizbloggers.com sources, per what we stated about the word blog above on this talk page (despite the fact that soap opera commentators are commonly bloggers/use blogs to report their soap opera critical views). But, anyway, I felt that the Todd Personality section needed more information, and so I fleshed that out. I also placed a tiny bit about "the Todd was raped by Peter Manning aspect" there because it fits there, and of course it's elaborated on in the Redeeming Todd section. I still want a Storylines section, though I prefer the character name links where they are and it could be a waste to have them in a Storylines section. But, as we've agreed on before, a Storylines section is not vital for the Todd Manning article. Give me another day or two to see if I am satisfied with the current state of the article, and we can move on to the WP:Featured article review.

talk

) 15:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've seen that you made the changes; I'm inclined to be fine with them, but I probably won't have time to look more closely at them until the weekend. (I have some end-of-the-round GA Cup business to take care of and my fellow judges have been silent and/or absent the last couple of weeks, and we're going away for the holiday.)

I'm also inclined to agree with you about using blogs. I'm of the opinion that we need to use them sparingly. Yes, blogs are how most soap commentary are done these days, but we should only use blogs from established soap commentators like Marlena, Berry, and Fairman. I started to comb through Berry's blog for content, but stopped after we agreed not to use her. I think that we should continue because it means that this article would be more comprehensive and include more storyline, which we both agree is needed. When we get to FAC, we need to explain our rationale for using them. It may take a little longer, but I think it's worth the time. There's no rush, right? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the use of Berry and similar, we agreed to use those types of sources sparingly, not that we should never use them. The bit that I added was keeping in line with that. The only reason that I added the Berry content to the Personality section is because it's not a lot of content and that section needed fleshing out. It is important to note those aspects of Todd's personality. All the other sections in the article are adequately fleshed out; so I'm not sure what other content you'd be looking to add, unless it's for a Storylines section. I could craft a Storylines section, and then we could add critical commentary to it for the big moments, which, as I've noted before, is what the

talk

) 18:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond; things have been busy here and IRL. I'm fine with the changes you made and why. I'm so interested in seeing what reviewers think, especially about its structure and if they want us to move stuff around. I'll go ahead and peruse Berry now, and perhaps that will bulk up storyline content. After that, and barring any objection from you, I'll go ahead and submit to FAC. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to apologize, especially with as long as I've taken to respond to you on Todd Manning matters. I tweaked the Berry bit you recently added. I think that there is enough Berry content in the article, however, especially in the Personality section. I've made up my mind that I'm going to go ahead and downsize the Storylines section that was in the article, remove or downsize any redundancy in it that is covered later on in the article, and add critical and/or actor commentary to it. Again, storyline sections are common for fictional character articles. This is also evident by

talk

) 21:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan, regarding this addition concerning Berry, is it not somewhat redundant to what is already in that section? It is to me. Also, how much more are you looking to add regarding Berry? I obviously think that we should take it easy on that aspect, and stick to what we've already included from her before today.

talk

) 20:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I can see your point about the above addition being repetitive, so I tweaked it a bit and I think it's much better now. Would you mind, when you work on the Storylines section, using a sandbox? Re: Berry: I've been going through her commentaries and gleaming what I can. looking for assessment of Todd's character and behaviors. Personally, I don't think it's excessive, and she's been a good source for information about the tail end of Todd's story as played by St. John. I think that there's potential for some expansion and fill-in about the St. John years, which I think is lacking. I think that I've been selective thus far and have only added from about half a dozen of Berry's commentaries in the last few weeks. Tell me what you have issue with, and we can discuss further, of course. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate you tweaking this Berry bit. My issue with using Berry is what I've already stated on the matter; yes, she is a soap opera commentator that is known well enough to the soap opera community, but she is essentially a blog from

talk

) 22:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll try and be even more sparing, if that's a word. I'm almost finished combing through Jill's commentaries; they run until mid-2010, and then Kaydee Barnett takes over, and I haven't looked at them to decide if they're usable. Yes, we decided that the article would be more Howarth-heavy, but that's because we saw that there's been more written about him as Todd than St. John. I think that if we can find more content about St. John out there, we should add it. I also think that reviewers will initially have issues with our use of about.com, but that once we explain that it's appropriate for this article, with the dearth of soap opera commentary out there, they'll accept it. If we include a storylines section, yes, we need to watch out for repetition, although we can use the sources. Thanks for moving the plot summary in a sandbox; I totally understand your feelings about sandboxes, with your more contentious topics, but we should be safe with Todd, since it seems that our work thus far has flown under the radar, as they say. (That must be a new experience for you, haha!) I'll take a look at your sandbox and muck about it in the next couple of days, since I'm off work for several weeks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not keen on using anymore About.com sources, and we should be careful to avoid redundancy when adding content about Todd's personality; for example, this latest bit you added was partly redundant, so I cut the redundant part. Then I felt that the section needed rearranging, so I did that, as seen here. We don't especially need About.com sources. They are helpful for a little information regarding Todd's personality, and a bit for his popularity, but I don't see a need for their use beyond that. We don't have to use them for the Storylines section, and I'd prefer that we don't. I've noted before that, per

talk

) 07:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I hear you and I won't use about.com anymore; I was almost done, and what's left probably isn't usable, anyway. I think we're pretty much finished with the commentary sections; i.e., everything else. I agree that the current version is as comprehensive as it's gonna get. Since we're moving onto discussion about the Storylines section, I'm going to move it to a new section now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Fly, to be frank, I'm good with the article as it stands, although I understand your point about needing a Storylines section, so I'm also good with including one. I agree that it should be significantly shorter than the version in your sandbox

) 23:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Although I mentioned the Pauline Fowler storyline sections as an example to you, I don't have the time to make the Storylines section much like that. Like I noted in the section immediately above this one (my "07:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)" post), there is no need to source the Storylines section...unless sourcing commentary that is not a part of the plot. Sourcing the section is a choice, for the most part. But either way, I don't have enough WP:Reliable sources to source the whole section. To source that whole section, I'd have to search for, likely pay for, soap opera magazine sources or resort to SoapCentral.com and/or About.com. And, as already noted, I'd rather stay away from SoapCentral.com and About.com sources; they should be used sparingly. Furthermore, and I noted this before on this talk page, SoapCentral.com's plot sections are written by fan volunteers. Again, for the Todd Manning Storylines section, I'm looking to significantly cut that section down. The only thing that I am looking to source in that section is critical commentary, in quote boxes. I'll try to get started on that soon.

talk

) 17:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I might also add critical commentary that is not in quote boxes; the Pauline Fowler storyline sections use both styles (quote boxes and non-quote boxes). But I'm not sure, especially since the Early writing and literary analysis section of the Todd Manning article is already like that (relaying the story with critical commentary that is not in quote boxes).

talk

) 17:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, sorry for taking longer than expected with this. As you can see from this link, I stated, "Perhaps works better as two subsections, like editors model the Appearances section: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Role in "SHOW NAME"." I also stated, "Added actor names. Made more cuts to wording. This is as short as I can get all of Todd's history (the most significant storylines) -- these eight paragraphs."

And that is true; I re-read all that text and looked for what else I could cut, and I didn't see that I could significantly cut anything else. All eight paragraphs are needed to summarize Todd's years on the series. And while I know you wanted better, having such a section is common in WP:Good and WP:Featured character articles. With regard to non-soap opera television shows, the content is usually titled Appearances, like in the WP:Featured

) 13:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I've made more minor cuts and tweaks to the section, and will continue to make any more cuts that I see that I can pull off without losing important information.

) 15:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you want me to go ahead and implement your sandbox changes? Or will you? The live version is now different than my sandbox version, so when implementing your text, we can't just copy and paste the whole sandbox version without reverting the extra changes I've made.

) 22:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Fly, for working on this. Good stuff, but of course I had a couple of tweaks, which I've already made in your sandbox. They were mostly grammatical and to help it flow a little better. I'll look at it again tomorrow to make sure it flows better. I also have a few questions/concerns; see below. I think the length is fine; it's as short as it's gonna get, especially with how much history there is with this character.

• Final subsection "General Hospital": You include the final part of Todd's storyline in the GH section, although it really happened on the online version of OLTL. I wonder if we need to create another sub-section, entitled something like "One Life to Live (online version)".
• In the GH section, Cole and Hope didn't die from "a shooting death"; they just died in the car accident on GH. I fixed it.
• You by-pass all of the storyline having to do with St. John's tenure. I thought, especially in light of the arguments and "reconn controversy" below, and from previous discussion, that we were treating it as though he was really Todd. If so, shouldn't we include the history from the St. John's years? I'm all for keeping your version, but I just wanted clarification. If we include those years, it should be under a new heading that makes it clear that it was later revealed that it wasn't really Todd.
• The Marlena De Lacroix 11 May 2009 ref is dead.

That's all for now; I may have more when I look at it again, and then we can cut-and-paste into the article. Then we can submit it to FAC! I'm so glad we're moving forward again! Isn't the lack of drama a nice change of pace for you! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Christine, like I noted above, the sandbox version is not the live version. The current version is the one that is in the article. So shouldn't you be editing that version? Or do you want us to transfer that version to the sandbox while keeping your edits intact? In the current version, that Marlena De Lacroix text is working.

As for creating another subsection to cover the online version of One Life to Live bit, I'm against that, since there is not enough material with regard to the text we have and, per

MOS:Paragraphs

, we should avoid subheadings for a little bit of material. Instead of using the show names for the headings, we can simply use years, like the other One Life to Live character articles do.

As for the Cole and Hope part, that's not my text. Remember, I simply molded the Storylines section that you'd taken out of the article.

As for the St. John years... Again, the text was like that before I began editing it. And I think it's for the best. I mentioned to you that I was going to have the Storylines section mostly address detail that the article does not already address. We don't need the Storylines section to be largely redundant to the rest of the article. The "Victor Lord, Jr. is not Todd Manning" bit is already covered by other parts in the article and by the

talk

) 22:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: Okay that Victor Lord, Jr. link needs to expand its Victor Lord, Jr. content, but that page should still serve as the primary page for the "Victor as Todd" plot summary. Anyway, I added your changes to the live version, as seen here (followup edit here). Then I added the years as subheadings, as seen here and here. And then I added the new text to the sandbox to continue to be worked on there.

talk

) 23:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, reading

talk

) 23:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I just narcisstically assumed that you handle sandboxes like me, which is that I copy old content and cut-and-paste it into a sandbox, then work on it there, and then delete the content in article space and replace it with the new version from my sandbox. No matter, by now the new content is in article space, anyway, and it's lookin fine. I liked your solution about using years as subheadings, as other soap articles do. I accept your explanation for not including the St. John years; someone else will have to expand Victor Jr.'s section in the OLTL character article, which isn't me because I'm unfamiliar with it, anyway. (I actually agree with the contingent that supports Victor having his own article.)

What I am familiar with, though, is GH. What happened with Cole and Hope is that Johnny Zaccaro was chasing his father (who was really his grandfather Anthony, played by Bruce Weitz) in a car and shot out his tires. Anthony crashed into Cole and Starr's car, ultimately causing their deaths. Side btw: when I read in your plot summary that Todd runs into Heather Webber (Robin Mattson, who has such a delicious chemistry with Howarth) before the baby swap, I was tempted to add that she was his mother, but I stopped myself. She's Franco's mom (the guy Howarth now plays on GH), and I must admit that sometimes I forget, since Franco is very much like Todd. I still hold out hope that Todd will someday return to GH. ;)

At any rate, do you think that this article is now ready for FAC? If so, I can submit it on your say-so, or you can if you like. Yippee!! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

With regard to the sandbox, if you had copy and pasted the old content (meaning the content that I'd recently edited in the article) into the sandbox, and edited it that way, it would have been fine. But you were editing content that had become outdated since I'd changed it in the live version (the version that was in the article).

As for Victor Lord, Jr. having his own Wikipedia article... At the time of the

WP:Notable

; I'd nominate that article for deletion and note it as a WP:Redundant fork if it were created.

As for WP:FA, go ahead and submit the article.

talk

) 04:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yah, I can see how that could be a real problem, which would require lots of discussion. I can only think of one other similar situation, Roman Brady, who our friend the reconn guy mentioned, so I went to see how it's done there, and saw that it's been done badly. So there are no other real precedence for this kind of thing, at least not one that I can think of. Like I said, above my pay grade. I will go and nominate now, and like I've also said before, whoo hoo! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi - I added a tone tag because the style of the article needs a little improvement; it's mainly the use of quotes inserted in the text without attribution. There are also several paragraphs including statements of opinion lacking references e.g. "The most important aspect of Todd's appearance for St. John was his character's hair", though for the most part it's the lead that needs reworking. There also seems to be an over-reliance upon Soap Opera Weekly as a source of opinion, but I'm not sure of the rules there. The tag was removed by another user but I still think it needs work. Up to others out there to decide 77.99.12.140 (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This editor should be ignored. Nothing but a stalker/harasser who does not know what he is talking about. For example, the "most important aspect of Todd's appearance for St. John was his character's hair" is sourced; the IP seemingly requires

talk

) 01:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I still think the use of quotes inserted in text without attribution goes against Wikipedia's Quotation guidelines. And I'm not suggesting a citation overkill - just that potentially contentious statements are supported by citations that the average user can identify; what is the reference for the statement of opinion "The most important aspect of Todd's appearance for St. John was his character's hair"? What's the source? It isn't clear within the text, though I have attempted to check the sources. There are plenty of good portions of the article, though. 77.99.12.140 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The statement about St. John's hair is sourced by ref15, at the end of the paragraph, and it's a reasonable citing technique. This article is referenced this way throughout. You really don't know what you're talking about. Not that I should be wasting my time, but in case there are others who are interested and actually investing in improving this project, it's not required to link the lead, unless there are direct quotes; see

WP:LEADCITE. SOW is a soap opera industry magazine, so this article is going to use it and other mags like it more than other sources. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk

) 16:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Note The IP also engaged in

talk

) 21:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Too much stalking time on his hands indeed.

talk

) 21:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Trevor St. John never actually portrayed Todd, that was retconned away long ago.

Hello to all! As anyone who knows anything about Todd Manning will know: Trevor St. John never actually portrayed Todd, that was retconned away long ago. Apparently I have to write that here before taking out incorrect info from the infobox (even though this very article states it in the very first paragraph...).Cebr1979 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979, thanks for taking the discussion here to the talk page, as per WP policy. You say that St. John never portrayed Todd, but you're wrong; he did, something that has agreed upon by all parties involved in OLTL and by consensus here. See here [1]. Although this discussion centers around whether or not Victor Lord, Jr. should have his own article, consensus stated that St. John was a recast. Additionally, this discussion [2] between the two architects of improvements that have occurred in the past year demonstrate consensus that St. John is a recast. For these reasons, this article treats St. John as a recast, and as the first paragraph states, history was changed later. I was going to revert back, but I see that it has already occurred. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

[

talk

) 23:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

And as for you relinking those character names, I delinked them because they will be covered in the Storylines section I will be adding.

talk

) 23:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... looks like an old conversation. Time for another one because it would make sense to have this article go in line with other American soap articles with the same circumstances (ie: Drake Hogestyn not really playing Roman Brady and Kelli Giddish not really playing Dixie Cooney).Cebr1979 (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely time for another conversation! After reading them, any comments regarding St. John being a recast sure do look like original research... We will discuss.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... You've been "adding" that storyline section for over half a year now. I feel it's in wikipedia's best interest (and also the reader's who come to this site), to leave the linking as is until you finally find the time to get around to what you've not yet done even though you said you will. Definitely not a case of overlinking. At this point in time, it's actually a case of underlinking.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Like I stated on my talk page, "This case is not like the

talk

) 23:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It actually has been that long, allow me to refresh your memory with this edit of yours where you de-linked Patrick Thornhart because of your upcoming storylines section... over half a year ago. This is not the purpose of this discussion, however. We're here to discuss Trevor St. John not having portrayed the character of Todd Manning. I'll drop the Dixie thing to make you happy but, it is 100% exactly the same as Drake Hogestyn not portraying Roman Brady. Having St. John listed as a Todd Manning portrayer is not only misleading, it clutters the infobox. Thank you for posting on the projects page. Let's have others weigh in.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

In addition to other things you and I disagree on, we disagree on what is "that long" as well. The

talk

) 01:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Cebr, you said that this actor was retconned to not have portrayed Todd Manning. Here is the most important fact, we don't deal in retcons. If it existed as true originally, then it exists as true historically. We can say that they later retconned this event, but we don't remove it simply because producers want us to forget it happened. THat's not how Wikipedia works. We work based on history, and historically he did actually portray the character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, @Bignole:! So, since we don't deal with retcons, the entire Trevor St. John business should be removed from the entire article, not just the infobox for, you see... Trevor St. John was originally "Walker Laurence" and then retconned into "Todd Manning" and then later again retconned into "Victor Lord, Jr." Or, we could just remove St. John from the infobox and leave the rest of the info as is. You can read all about it here. It's just one big retcon.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Whoa. What it is going on? Any way, Trevor St. John WAS credited as Todd Manning for eight YEARS, much like how Drake Hogestyn was credited as Roman Brady before the retcon of them actually being other characters happened. So I would include St. John in the list of actors, I could include Hogestyn in the list for Roman. Jester66 (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that,

talk

) 07:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I've tangled with this person before on more than one occasion. Jester66 (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan, this recent matter with an IP reminded me that we've italicized initialisms in this article. I was initially against it because it seemed incorrect, but you stated that it was okay to do so. Googling the matter today, I came across this proofreadnow.com blog, which has the following bullet point: "Do not italicize acronyms or initialisms even if they are the official title of a printed piece." But I want to see what more reliable sources, especially scholarly sources, state on this matter. We could also ask at

) 23:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan, I was hoping that this italics matter would be addressed before the second WP:FA nomination. Pinging

) 08:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I've used <ins>...</ins> to mark up self-revisions to this post. Agreed, as a general matter. A) It would be abnormal style here, not consistent with site-wide use of italics or of acronyms/initialisms to routinely italicize them. B) There's no support for this odd style at

WP:FAR don't really have anything to do with style questions; those processes check for compliance with MOS and other guidelines, but an italicization tweak either way would be a minor one, and should not affect an FAx review. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢

 ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC) (revised: 13:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC) – I misunderstood the nature of the issue at first, and though it was about italicizing things like "CBS" and "NBC", not titles specifically; I've refactored what I said to make better sense.)

As usual, thank you,

talk

) 13:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

YW. :-) PS: Sorry I misunderstood the nature of the question at first and had to revise. My mouse driver is flipping out and making it extreme difficult to type or read. I have to restart and hope that fixes the issue.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I first came to this article in about mid-2012, shortly after Roger Howarth brought Todd to GH. I was intrigued by both the actor and the character, and not having watched OLTL, I came to WP for more information. I thought that this might be a fun article to tackle, but didn't begin until 2 years later, in mid-2014. I had seen Flyer22 (now

) around the project before, but this was the first time I had collaborated with her. We didn't always agree, and sometimes the discussion got heated, but it was never impolite. The result is this article, which mostly due to RL concerns and busyness, took us 3 years to submit to FAC, which was successful in the final hours of 2015.

Personally, I'm very proud of this article, which may represent one of my most significant accomplishments on WP. I don't want to speak for Flyer22 Reborn, whose friendship I gained due to working on it with her, but I'm sure she's proud of it as well. I believe that it can be a model for future similar articles, both in its subject and the collaboration it took to make into a great FA. It's groundbreaking in that it's the first FA about an American soap opera character. It's also only the 6th FA-Class soap opera article and the 3rd FA about a soap character. Perhaps I'm being self-indulgent, but I'd like to congratulate Flyer22 Reborn and myself. Speaking for myself (and Flyer perhaps as well), it's my hope that more high-quality soap opera articles can be created and improved, as this one has. Thanks to all who helped, of course. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Todd Manning. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://abc.go.com/daytime/onelifetolive/bios/todd_manning.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://soapoperadigest.com/soapstarstats/rogerhowarthbio/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.soapoperadigest.com/features/one-life-to-live/features/recasts/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—

:Online 10:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

) 08:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm good with changing the images as you've done. We need to keep an eye out for potential challenges to them because although the FUR is rational, someone might object to them because they're not free. I like them better, too, so I'm for keeping them for now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Christine (Figureskatingfan). I recently replied to you via email, making it clear that I'm not sure what you mean by the images possibly being a problem, I stated, "The previous images are non-free as well. It's common to use non-free images for the infobox of a fictional character article or for critical commentary as long as the images have valid rationales. These do."

Is your concern that they are promotional images instead of screenshots? If so, promotional images of characters are also commonly used in the infoboxes of our Wikipedia articles.

talk

) 02:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I did get your email, pal, but haven't been able to get to it yet, so I'll just answer you here. I've never said that I had any common sense regarding images, so I'm sure your additions are fine. Thanks for continuing to manage and improve this article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the other images, there was no reason to change them. Christine I prefer the other images, I must admit tho, the TSJ one needed changed, but what's up with the bearded faces? Those were just promotional shots, which I don't think you can use on Wikipedia. P.J. (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Christine (Figureskatingfan).

talk

) 18:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, P.J., given that that the Howarth/Todd image shows me and

talk

) 18:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: At

) 20:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

) 08:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)