Talk:Dorian Lord

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


Untitled[edit]

Hello, I wanted some input on this. I changed Dorians profile to reflect on Victor Lord's 2003 ressurection. If Victor was alive, then Dorian's Marriages to Herb, Manuel, David, and Mel were all invalid. I feel this may be controversial, but I want to point out that Dorian left the show in February 2000. When she returned in April 2003, she was to marry Mitch Laurence. She mentioned to Blair on her first episode back that she didn't return sooner because the thought of returning as Victor's wife was "too gruesome". I would like some feedback on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.241.12.11 (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Lord?[edit]

We should move this from 'Dorian Cramer Lord' to 'Dorian Lord'. It has been the name she has used for 30+ years (since 1975). She has always been reffered to as Mrs. Lord or Dr. Lord. When she married Mel, se was reffered to as 'Dorian Lord-Hayes'. When she was married to David, it was 'Dorian Lord-Vickers'. When she married Mitch and Herb, respectively, it was 'Dorian Lord-Laurence' and 'Dorian Lord-Callison'. The show has gone out of their way to make 'Lord' her maiden name (even though it is not). The fact is, she is 'Dorian Lord'. Look at this linkto see that the network, ABC, considers her to ber 'Dorian Lord'. I'm actually shocked this article is still named 'Dorian Cramer Lord', because her common name is 'Dorian Lord'. What do you think? Would you support such a move? I hope we have a consensus... Bmf777 (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with it.— TAnthonyTalk 14:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been moved. AniMatetalk 19:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Buchanan[edit]

On several episodes on OLTL she's been referred to as "Dr. Buchanan" and also announced herself as Dorian Lord Buchanan. Theirfore, shouldn't it be mentioned at the beginning of the article that her last name is legally "Buchanan". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.143.90 (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her name isn't legally Buchanan. She's married to David Vickers, so her name would legally be Dorian Cramer Vickers. Despite his biological ties to the family, David hasn't changed his last name to Buchanan, so Dorian calling herself 'Buchanan' now is much fraudulent. On no legal document is her name 'Buchanan.' —The Real One Returns 09:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It would be, if she had taken the name, Dorian Lord-Buchanan. 'Lord' is like a maiden name for Dorian, she never drops it. I have been reluctant to chanfe it and indeed have been watching the opening credits. And I will continue to do so. The day she is credited as 'Dorian Lord Buchanan', I'll personally change it. But this marriage is still up in the air (will it last? the legality?)Bmf777 (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not Soap Opera Digest; common names should prevail and the day-to-day marriages and trivia should take a back seat to real-world context and actual content. Come on people!— TAnthonyTalk 01:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged affairs with Dan Wolek/Asa Buchanan[edit]

Dorian was never romantically linked with either Asa Buchanan or Dan Wolek. Only Soap Central (which is littered with biographical errors, due to their allowing anyone to submit character info.) erroneously lists those two as characters Dorian supposedly had affairs with. ABC.com, nor any other OLTL info. site, backs this up. Until we can get another source to cite this, these [false] claims are to remain off the article. —The Real One Returns 09:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Good thing I can prove it. Dorian WAS involved with Dan and Asa, during the early-mid '80s; it was in a period where the creative teams were in constant flux, so these abortive stories often fall through the cracks and do not get frequent mention. Dorian had a brief May-December fling with Dan in fall 1984 similar to her thing with Joey years later, and later, in a separate story, she lost her riches and was forced to become servant to the Buchanans, which led to a brief dalliance with Asa. I believe Paul Rauch quashed the Asa/Dorian storyline when he took over, and created the Pamela Stuart story. These aren't false claims, and you don't have to take my word for them - just go on YouTube. In the case of Dorian/Dan Wolek, simply search for episodes with these characters - their brief romance is there in video record, as is at least one scene of the Asa/Dorian storyline, in which they passionately kiss (look up "Asa, Dorian, kiss"). Just because a storyline is beyond the limits of your experience does not mean it never happened.--Jbt1138 (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humored myself and did a YouTube search of "Dorian/Dan Wolek." No results. Also did a Google search. Again, no confirming results. In the 1980s, Dorian was romantically linked Herb Callison, David Renaldi, Harry O'Neill and John Russell. Her "May/December" romances were with David Vickers, Joey Buchanan and Jason Webb. Once more, I stand firm to the position that Dorian was never romantically involved with Dan. If you can prove otherwise, then by all means do. Provide some sources: links to profile summaries...story recaps...YouTube clips. Anything. And I'll back off. But for now, from what I can tell there is *nothing* (besides a faulty SOC description) to verify that this ever happened. And on ABC.com's OLTL site, when they used to do profile summaries for characters, they never listed Dan or Asa as former love interests for Dorian. Speaking of Asa. I'm aware that when Dorian's finances were frozen during the reveal that Victor had been married to Irene before her, that Dorian briefly worked for Asa...and that there were subtle *hints* that the the show was considering pairing them up (sort of like the show hinted at Kelly being paired up with Antonio and Hugh), but it never came to fruition. As I recall, Asa and Dorian did nothing more than very briefly flirt with the possibility of an affair. Flirtation and hinted at innuendo is vague and should not be included in these articles. Now because of the three revert rule, I won't revert the article again today...however, we need a third party in here to weigh in before this turns into an edit war. —The Real One Returns 19:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Not only have these strange and wacky stories been discussed around the Net and Usenet over time, all you have to do is Youtube search "dorian dan 'one life' (as a phrase)" and you'll get a variety of OLTL episodes, most specifically from the fall of 1984, showing Dorian and Dan Wolek flirting and dating. What's more, Dorian and Asa most certainly DID pursue a relationship after she went to work for him, as will be proven if you simply search for 'dorian asa kiss' on YouTube. You'll find at least one clip from that 1985 storyline in which Dorian and Asa admit their feelings and kiss (the clip is specifically titled "Asa and Dorian Kiss"), after Asa attempts to fire Dorian from his employ. These stories were certainly short-lived, which accounts for their being glossed over from time to time in official record, but they did occur. Your inability to properly search and research is not my or Wikipedia's problem. I've done the work. Furthermore, if we're going to strike these from the record based on length of storyline or other considerations, we may as well do the same for Ray Montez, whose storyline is just about as long and is about to end prematurely, without a full-blown romance. --Jbt1138 (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is disputing an item listed in the article, the proceedure here is to then REFERENCE it. You haven't done that. All you've done is say search this, search that. YOU search it and cite it, since it is YOU insisting that these things have happened. Incognito9810 (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to drop a bunch of links to sections from stand-alone episodes of ongoing serialized stories from 25 years ago in the talk page, then I can do that. But I'm not sure what you want or expect. We've got Asa and Dorian making out, Dorian and Dan dating and flirting. But these are all pieces of a then-ongoing daily storyline, all of which is never going to make it on YouTube or any other site; the material is so old that there will never be a complete video documentation of the storyline from beginning to end. So, what exactly do you want to see linked or cited, since apparently viewer testimony and Soapcentral's historical record are not enough? --Jbt1138 (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys going to go at this forever? JBT, your "testimony" is not a good reference per Wikipedia policy, and SoapCentral has been established as unreliable. Adding the Asa/Dan info without a specific reference might have been fine if others agreed, but now it is being challenged. Rather than rail on about how insulted you are that no one believes you, and sending challengers off on searches, you could have just provided the YouTube links to Asa and Dorian kissing and a Dan/Dorian sequence (which I couldn't find on a quick search but I'm sure you can). So now we all believe you. But here's a problem: YouTube is not an acceptable source for an article, because it is against Wikipedia policy to link to copyrighted material that is made available on the internet without the copyright holder's permission. I suggest you create a clear section/note on this talk page with YouTube links to prevent challenges in the future, but true or not, the burden of providing proof from reliable and verifiable sources is on you. I certainly won't challenge or remove the info because I can see you are correct, but please familiarize yourself with policy before you explode in the future.— TAnthonyTalk 23:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I was very annoyed, but believe me, part of it is because I understand the dilemma. I seemed to recall that YouTube links were against policy, which is why I found myself in a uniquely difficult position: We're dealing with longstanding media in an article about media, the media provides the only acceptable proof of the claim, but Wikipedia won't allow YouTube links. So then the question becomes what am I to cite that both follows policy and satisfies The Real One Returns. I have no problem with creating a section for the appropriate links, but wouldn't that also be against the same policy? It becomes a no-win scenario. --Jbt1138 (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dorian Lord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dorian Lord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dorian Lord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dorian_Lord&oldid=1207015578"