Talk:Kate Howard

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Soap Operas

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Children of General Hospital#Hope Manning-Thornhart|Hope Manning-Thornhart]] The anchor (#Hope Manning-Thornhart) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

General comments about the article[edit]

The reference list on this article is unnecessary and completely out of hand. This is a fictional character on a soap and it looks like you are trying to prove the person really exists. It is out of uniformity with the rest of the soap character articles and contains information that in general is not contained on any other character page. Even the controversial Luke Spencer doesn't have the references this article does and he's a classified rapist. For a character so new, the article is blinding with unnecessary information. If I was looking for basic information, which is what we try and provide, I'd head somewhere else after encountering this. Project goal is uniformity. This is an island unto itself. IrishLass 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an outside observer who formally did a lot of work with the Good Articles project, I have to disagree with some of the assessments in the above comment. The Luke Spencer article is very poorly unreferenced and would not hold it up as a comparison article. Regardless if the article is about a fictional character or a species of trees, it still has to confirm to the basic wikipedia policies of WP:V and WP:OR. In fact, I would say it is more pressing for an article about a fictional character to be well referenced since it is so easy to insert OR "I saw it on the show" type claims into the article. As for some constructive criticism, I would try to limit the number of "direct quotes" used in the article for ease of readability. Try to find ways to more subtly incorporate some of those thoughts into the prose of the text. But overall this is one of the better soap character articles in the Wikipedia. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 21:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I should include the disclaimer that I have worked with Charleen on wine related articles in the past but my assessment of this article is purely based on my own POV from my GA experience which included some reviews of fictional character articles. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 21:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Agne, I am actually working on incorporating the quotes in the article. I just wanted to put them in one place prior to editing. The comments were helpful.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Meganwabcpromo001.png[edit]

Image:Meganwabcpromo001.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:KateHoward-Kelly Sullivsn.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:KateHoward-Kelly Sullivsn.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

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

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

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate personalities[edit]

Do we really have to have that information in a separate section? She only has one alternate personality, and isn't going to have any more. The information about Connie is more than covered in the rest of the article. I know that characters from One Life To Live have alters in a separate section, but they have many alters. And it isn't like the is a rule/policy that says every fictional character with DID has to follow this format (Is there?), Tara from United States of Tara does not do it this way. Also the way the information in the "connie" section is written is a little questionable. She has a strong dislike for fashion? Last week she told Todd she has great fashion sense and wants to run the magazine. Thoughts?Caringtype1 (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I hadn't noticed that. I think that section (paragraph/bullet point that is) should just go. I don't think it should be compared to OLTL without quoting a source. You could say it's mirroring any DID story. And the fashion comment isn't relevant/is debatable. I don't think the section is useful - if it was written more in depth with sources and details on character development then I think it would lean towards warranting it's own section. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is one for Victoria Lord and Jessica Buchanan, and I think it's good to have to keep track of the personalities she has. It's part of her character, so it should be included. And the section states she has a great distaste for Kate's involvement in the fashion industry, not fashion itself. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 18:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those characters have many alters, while Kate has just one, so that format is better suited for characters with several alters. Connie is mentioned so many times throughout the article, by the time the reader gets to "alternate personalities " there is no new information. The fashion thing was just an example, many parts of that section are subject to change because Connie's personality hasn't been as fully fleshed out as Kate's has.Caringtype1 (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Victoria and Jessica I see now why that section was created/put there, but in my opinion as the article stands right now it seems out of place. If she were to develop multiple alters it would work to format like the others, but the one bullet point on its own looks like a mistake if you don't know about the other articles. At least that's what I thought, I didn't get that it was to be the beginning of a list. I think with Victoria and Jessica the list seems to be a nice summary/recap of the multiple alters after having read the storyline. Here the content is more of a brief statement on who her one alter is, I think it would flow better up by character development and without a bullet point. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birth name/alias[edit]

I looked up a few other characters to see what is done with birth names that have been changed (I wasn't sure myself). Based on Sonny Corinthos, Carly Corinthos, and Alexis Davis, I think the birth name should be in the first sentence and not repeated in the infobox.

I also think that the relationship parameter descriptions on the infobox page could use some elaboration. There are a handful of common practices I only know from seeing other edits/reverts to edits, where I would have been doing the thing correctly if I had read it there. It's also helpful to reference that page when reverting edits, as opposed to "that's what we've decided, on some talk page, that is hard to find and explain." I would suggest this at wp:soaps, but I hardly get any response there. So I'm basically just saying it to say it, ha. LLM - you seem to know a lot of these common practices, so if adding to that page is something you're interested in, I think it would help other editors, and myself. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the birth name shouldn't be included in 'alias'. It was name used by the character that they no longer use. That's an alias, and there is nothing in the parameters that says they shouldn't be included. Why can't it be mentioned in the info box, as well as the main paragraph? The info box is supposed to sum up everything in the article, and that would be leaving out a big detail.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birth name is not the same as an alias. The birth name is to be at the beginning of the first article. Allukka (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]