Talk:General Hospital/Archive 1

Speculation on actors
Actors who have participated in taping but not aired aren't current cast members. They will be when they get aired. What if someone important in the plot dies? How can one be sure the previously taped episodes won't be revised or re-recorded? The same priniciple applies for actors that are leaving. Perhaps something could happen that would postpone the leaving of the character for another month. S/he would still exist, but not be shown. Encyclopedias contain facts, not speculation. --jag123 08:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User 64.252.19.252 et al does not seem to understand the basics of Wikipedia. This user refuses to particpate in this discussion, and continues to post rumors and speculation in to a Wikipedia article. If this users wish to run a clearinghouse for General Hospital cast changes and rumors, I might suggest the user start a website to do so. Putting unconfirmed speculation in an article, and not even sourcing that speculation is not within the bounds of the Wiki charge. Boisemedia 06:52, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * See User:B-Movie Bandit and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas. Mike H 06:52, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Regaurding the "Comings and Goings" --- I think the central idea here is that just because a soap magazine says it, doesn't meant that it will happen. Quoting above: "Perhaps something could happen that would postpone the leaving of the character for another month. S/he would still exist, but not be shown.  Encyclopedias contain facts, not speculation."  Also, putting an actor in a seperate category is misleading -- the person is still a member of the cast -- but they aren't included as such.  Boisemedia 03:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Soap opera magazines usually identiy what are rumors and what is fact. If someone on a message board says that "sources" tell them an actor is leaving, that may be suspect, but when a soap opera magazine says it, they are right about 99% of the time. They are not speculating. They are generally stating a fact. Even if the loss was postponed for a month, they are still leaving the show. And if someone is no longer on the show, it doesn't matter if their character still exists - they are not being paid by the show, they are no longer a cast member. If they are on recurring I would list them as such. Grabow is not being moved to recurring. She is being written out. Laura Spencer is still mentioned and she has not been on the show in over 3 years - I hope that doesn't mean you are going to list Genie Francis as a cast member. There is nothing misleading about putting an actor in a category that says they are leaving. They are still listed as a cast member for the time they remain on the show, the only difference is the new listing that they are leaving the show. If I wanted to remove someone as a cast member I would take them off the page entirely.

I would like to hear some thoughts on this from people besides myself and Boisemedia, because listing actors who are leaving or joining the cast is standard for most of the other soap pages, and no one else seems to have a problem with this.

If this turns out not to be the case, or if ABC changes their mind and rehires Grabow (as happens occasionally, like with Robin Mattson on AMC 10 years ago) then that information can be updated. Hirings and firings on soaps are very fluid, so this is probably going to be an ever-changing section. As an interactive site, this will never simply be as textbook and rigid as an encyclopedia. --JamesB3 03:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess you miss my central point. Grabow is still, right now, a cast member.  REMOVING her from the cast section to put it in a separate category doesn't make any sense.  Perhaps a second listing would be appropriate -- but yanking her from the list of current actors is not accurate. Also, since I'm from the world of journalism -- I think any such entry should be sourced in some way (and this is certainly within Wikipedia's guidelines).  While you, James, are listing something based on information from a "news" organization, the B Movie Bandit likes to throw stuff up there that he/she read on a message board -- leaving it's validity often in question. Boisemedia 20:54, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, Boisemedia, I guess I just do not see moving her to a section on the same page as REMOVING her. I am not saying she is no longer on the show. I am saying that she is on her way out of the show. The information is going to be removed when she is off the show period. As of now she is being moved to a space that is only slightly below the cast list. I think that the mention in Soap Opera Weekly is enough of a "source", and I guess I just don't see this as a major violation of journalistic integrity. I see the "comings and goings" section as an area specifically for people who are leaving the show or joining the show, as a way to tip fans off about what is going on. I don't think that is inaccurate. If I wanted to be inaccurate I would remove their names entirely.

I haven't seen anyone committing any major abuses to the GH cast list, at least not recently. If they did then I would agree with you that these types of things should be stopped.

As for "news" sources, the soap opera magazines are right most of the time and they are the only real resource for final confirmation of actor hirings and firings. Many of the spoilers on the Internet are true, but of course some are not.

If you wish I will refrain from putting any other actors in that area, at least until a few more people give their opinions on the matter (if they have opinions).--JamesB3 00:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

POV and cast
The "POV" that was removed (about fans being tired of the Carly/Sonny/Jason/Courtney airtime) is something that has been much-discussed among fans. The original wording may have been a little strong but I think it should have been rewritten, not removed outright. These characters, and the fan reaction to them, has been a major part of GH the past five or six years.

Most of the other pages for current soaps have a section which mentions which actors are arriving and which are leaving. Someone took it out of GH with no explanation, so I restored it. --JamesB3 03:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Charlotte Reese Roberts
Reese Marshall was born Charlotte Reese Roberts so I believe it should be mention in the cast maybe like this Charlotte Reese Roberts/ Reese Marshall or maybe (Charlotte) Reese Roberts Marshall or (Charlotte) Reese Marshall or Charlotte Reese Roberts aka Reese Marshall or Charlotte Reese Roberts Evans Marshall or something that says who she really is.--Shimonnyman 09:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Caroline Benson/Carly Roberts ..... Alcazar
is it indeed known who is replacing Jennifer Bransford last I heard it was still secret. Also how can both people Laura Wright and Tamara Braun be going to replace her? Should the article be listing straight rumours as fact. Also how come in some places she is Carly Benson and others Carly Quatermaine Corinthos Alcazar. Also to be true was she really ever Carly Benson? Shouldnt she be listed as Caroline Benson AKA Carly Roberts Quartermaine Corinthos Alcazar? Just little technical obervations/should we jump the gun questions --Shimonnyman 07:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've said it before -- and I'll say it again... a cast member should remain in the "cast list" until they don't appear anymore. Putting them in a seperate section is not precise -- it makes it appear as though they aren't members of the cast anymore. Boisemedia 01:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying that, I quite agree my question is more why are we listing the other people (especialy without conformation) and why is she listed as Carly Benson? and notCaroline Benson AKA Carly Roberts Quartermaine Corinthos Alcazar no matter who we credit as the actress, who right now is Jennifer Bransford until otherwise shown in the seiries... --Shimonnyman 02:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

coming and going cast
Is this section even appropriate as it is never gaurenteed for anything to happen until it is aired? ABC can suddenly renegotiate contracts at a level that will alter past storylines that havnt aired yet and changing what scenes they show or don't show at whims beyond our comprehension. Also in the case of Laura Wright they can always go nevermind we dont like you and cancel there contract with her before they even air a single eppisode and could theorecticly renegotiate with Jennifer Bransford. Although I highly doubt this would happen it is always possible. Of course it is more likley with actors they havnt replaced but it has happened before and it can happen again and because this information has not yet aired it is not yet true. And also is it encyclopediatic to put things in the future as definitive?--Shimonnyman 20:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know how any of this is possible. They fired Bransford and it's very unlikely they would change their minds. If they did, then all we would have to do is change the page to reflect that. I haven't seen a lot of information put on here that turned out to be inaccurate. --JamesB3 02:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is the future isnt definative. I'm quite sure they wont take Bransford back too cuz it was there decision however what about when its the actor if they really want them sometimes they wait till the very last minute before pleaing. Also whose to say it wont be. I'm sorry Laura (Wright) but things aint working before its even aired and so hey retroactivly cut her or maybe like Kari Wuhrer will resign inspite of initialy chosing not too.. just saying we don't know the future --Shimonnyman 08:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the future isn't definitive. Neither is Wikipedia. If something changes, then it can be edited again. Most of the time, over 97% of the time, when someone is hired or fired for a soap, that sticks for at least a few months. Maybe Laura will be fired after a month. Maybe she will be kidnapped by aliens. If she is, then we can say she's going. If we keep everything on hold because of what might happen, nothing would ever be updated. I can see what you're saying, I just think that if this comes up, we can simply edit the page again. We are documenting a current event, and currently, the casting changes are taking place. --JamesB3 11:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Character Names
I don't understand what is going on with charecter names there are some I dont Agree with as from watching the show and the shows official webpage's charecter bios here:
 * Robin Christopher (Skye Chandler)
 * Ignacio Serricchio (Diego Sanchez)
 * Sarah & Emma Smith (Kristina Corinthos)
 * Jennifer Bransford (Carly Benson) (until October 5)
 * Laura Wright (Carly Benson) (starting November 4)

I believe Skye should be Quartermaine and Diego and Carly should be Alcazar (this is what they all have been going by and is what the formentioned website says they are called. (Carly maybe not as her latest insanity who knows whats going to happen.... but last I heard when someone used her name she would say its Alcazar.)

Also with Kristina.. I don't remember them changing her name but I might have missed that but the website lists Alexis Davis Lansings Daughter as Kristina Davis--Shimonnyman 04:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * When in doubt, it would make sense (to me, at least) to follow the episode's ending credits, since they're more up-to-date than even the website, which sometimes isn't updated for months at a time. -- D'Amico 00:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You can read them? They shrink and distort them so much that I find it 100% impossible and when I can read them they are incomplete and dont show the cast... Shimonnyman 09:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've spent a lot of years working with soap-related stuff -- I stare at the screen until they're clear. The interesting thing is that two of those characters have had their names listed on-air -- Skye is officially Skye Chandler, and Kristina is officially Kristina Adela Corinthos Davis. Even GH can't get their names right half the time. I figure there are three sources (in order) -- what is stated on-air as a legal name, what is listed in the end credits (they mis-spell Courtney's name -- she's listed as Courtney Jax when it should be Courtney Jacks), and as a last ditch effort, what is listed on the website. The website is the least accurate, IMHO, because it's made up by a group of techies. The site can't even agree on names (some places list Kristina Ashton Davis, some list Kristina Adella Corinthos Davis, some list Kristina Corinthos-Davis, etc -- same with Michael). You'd think someone would be checking that information. soapcentral.com is usually a good source where names are concerned because they'll list the various names characters have had and note whichever one is official. ... D'Amico 12:42, 28 November 2005

Move the Article Back
I see no need for a disambig page. The US GH is much better known both in the US and in the UK. Juppiter 18:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Moved back. Jcuk, DO NOT move the page back without a discussion at Requested Moves. Mike H. That's hot 14:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming Guidelines and General concensus
There seems to be no standards as to how the charecters are being named in here first thing its leagal names then it's what they go by then it's in the credits then its whatever we feel like then it's what they go by then credits leagal names just whatever we feel like we need a general concences and it needs to be standard for every charecter in the entire show.

Break up the article
I'm thinking that this article is getting a bit too long...well actually Wikipedia told me that it was now over 30k...so I was thinking that maybe the Title sequences could be put into its own article? what does everybody else think? Dippit 14:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We need to trim the 2005 section. We should not let recent history get the best of ourselves. It could be covered in one or two short paragraphs, not the long section there is right now. We don't need to know who came and who left when with exact dates. We should try and stick to describing how the characters left, and not "actors' final air dates." Mike H. That's hot 19:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * yes thats a good idea. I've also thought there was too much information on all the various storylines in 2005 (eg Carly's mental breakdown, the drugging storyline and really it should only have been mentioned that there was a train crash, not neccesarily all the extra details such as Alexis giving birth etc etc), which would be better put into a seperate article focussing on the storylines of General Hospital...these details I think originally started off as previews and spoilers and some posters may have gotten a bit long winded (And I am including myself amongst them) when trying to change them as the spoilers became past storylines. And the paragraph on whether Alicia Leigh Willis is coming or going could be moved to the article on Alicia Leigh Willis.  Dippit 12:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you want me to copy the entire 2005 section over here so we can figure out what needs to stay and go? Mike H. That's hot 06:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Um yes...in fact ill be smart and copy it here myself...we can always remove it from the discussion page later when it is done. Dippit 09:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For starters, two uses of "controversial heroine" can go. That tiny paragraph is just fine for the Emily/Connor thing. We don't need a REALLY big paragraph about Tamara Braun's departure. I'm debating whether or not we need any mention of it. We could just say "Carly (now being played by Jennifer Bransford)" and that would suffice just fine. We don't need to get crufty and go on and on about ratings falling and why she left; that's best left to Soap Digest. I'll continue with this later. Mike H. That's hot 21:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We now have a 2006 section...hmm I am starting to think that maybe we should have a seperate article for the history of GH like ATWT does. Dippit 14:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We simply do not need all the information on 2006 that we have. We do not need separate articles so people can cruft those up, too. We were doing just fine and all we have to do is trim it down. I will be trimming it down this evening. Mike H. That's hot 00:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the 2005 and 2006 sections should be combined with 2000-2004. I don't believe anything happened in the past two years on the show that is of great enough significance not to just do a synopsis of 2000-present. I'm a newbie, though, so I wanted to get opinions on the subject. Walkerb4 18:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yes you are probably right, its just that someone keeps on adding so much information about 2006 that if we combined them we'd have a really long section! I am totally stumped on what is the best way to go forward Dippit 02:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The 2005 and 2006 sections still need to be edited back to a level of detali comparable to the sections covering prior periods. Every minor plot device/detail does not need to be covered.  Also, the entire plot history probably should be broken off into a separate article linked to the main one so that realistic length can be maintained; this is especially important for those of us stuck still accessing Wikpedia via dialup.  Rlquall 23:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

2005 section
2005 would get off to a controversial start after one of the show's more controversial young heroines, Emily Quartermaine, was brutally raped by Connor Bishop in scenes that were quite graphic. Adding controversy to the storyline was the fact that Connor just happened to look exactly like Emily's husband Nikolas Cassadine. Connor was soon shot and killed by Emily.

In the spring of 2005, Emmy nominated actress Tamara Braun left the role of Carly Corinthos, a role she had garnered amazing praise for when she took over the role from Emmy Winner Sarah Brown. After Braun's exit the show began a storyline in which Carly's son, Michael (Dylan Cash), supposedly killed his own father, AJ Quartermaine (Billy Warlock). The image of a nine year old murderer may have contributed to a decline in ratings as well as Braun's exit from the series the show fell behind CBS daytime's As the World Turns and tying or barely beating the other less-hyped ABC soaps. The storyline then quieted down and ended, with the eventual reveal that it was Michael's therapist, Dr. Asher Thomas who was the real murderer. The show then ran on to show a comedic storyline involving Luke duping Tracy Quartermaine (Jane Elliot) into marriage.

In May 2005, Kristina Wagner was fired and replaced with former Another World star Sandra Ferguson. Maxie was also recast with former Days of our Lives star Kirsten Storms taking over for Robyn Richards. This raised conflict because of the revisit to a major storyline, "BJ's heart" with two new actresses trying to act like they were the old ones. The storyline ended in Maxie keeping BJ's heart and her sister Georgie (Lindze Letherman) recovering from her brain hemorrhage.

After Braun left the series, the role of Carly was recast with former One Life to Live star Jennifer Bransford. Despite Series star Maurice Benard wanting Bransford to stick around, the fans spoke louder than ever before and Bransford was released from her contract. Soon after, Guiding Light star Laura Wright took over the popular role of Carly Benson. Long-time archrival of Carly, Robin Scorpio (Kimberly McCullough), returned to town to help long time best friend of Carly, Jason Morgan (Steve Burton), regain his memory.

One storyline that did prove a definite hit with viewers during this rocky period was the October 2005 wedding of Lucky Spencer and Elizabeth Webber after an eight year long courtship. This was despite the fact that Lucky had had two recasts since Lucky and Liz first became popular. Jonathan Jackson had originally played the role of Lucky, but had exited the role in 1999. Jacob Young took over the part in 2000 and he in turn was succeeded in the role by Lucky's current portrayer, Greg Vaughan in 2003.

The fall of 2005 saw storylines that consisted of Carly's mental breakdown, which culminated in Carly being sent off to a psychiatric hospital for several months (A move that was done in order to allow viewers to adapt to Laura Wright taking over the part of Carly from Jennifer Bransford).

There was also the mystery of who was drugging college girls, such as Maxie and Brook Lynn Ashton (Adrianne Leon) and taking nude pictures of them. The stalker turned out to be Diego Alcazar (Ignacio Serricchio), Lorenzo Alcazar's (Ted King) long-lost son. Diego's motive was apparently his need to avenge the death of his cousin Sage (Katie Stuart). Diego was sent to prison.

Lucas Jones (Ben Hogestyn), son of long time veterans Bobbie and Tony Jones also made a comeback. This would prove to be a significant event in GH's history because Lucas soon revealed that he was gay, thus making him the first significant homosexual character on the programme. Whilst there had been gay characters on the show before such as schoolteacher Mr Murty and wedding co-ordinator Elton, they had merely been minor characters). Lucas was at first reluctant to come out, but was eventually forced to come out after he was the victim of a hate crime.

Courtney Matthews (Alicia Leigh Willis) discovered that she is pregnant with her estranged husband Jasper Jacks' (Ingo Rademacher) child, despite being in love with Nikolas Cassadine (Tyler Christopher). The storyline remains unresolved as there have been hints that the child may still be Nikolas'.

November 2005 saw a major disaster storyline involving a train collision and major real life drama. This storyline involved much of the canvas and was GH's sole focus for several weeks during the important sweeps period. During this storyline, Alexis Davis and father Ric Lansing gave birth to their baby in an antique train car via a c-section performed by Robin Scorpio and Emily Cassadine, Lucky Spencer survived a near fatal hit by a sharp metal impaling him, and the new Carly was introduced and then fought villain Manny Ruiz and escaped the crash. Reese Marshall (Kari Wuhrer) was the only major character to die in this storyline. Wuhrer, a relative newcomer to the show having only joined in February 2005, was let go due to lacking storyline between series stars Maurice Benard and Rick Hearst. Kari Wuhrer later decided to sue, claiming that her pregnancy was the cause of her dismissal.

Alicia Leigh Willis who announced on her official website on October 29 that she would be leaving the show and her character of Courtney Matthews at the end of 2005. Her final tapedate was supposed to be December 20 and her final airdate was suspected to be around January 20. Months went by, and many different actresses were suspected to have snagged the role. Then, something very surprising just recently happened, it was announced that Willis would be staying on GH after all. And once again, Willis is still leaving the soap and Courtney will be killed off.

Rick Springfield, who had played Dr Noah Drake during the 1980s, was recently tapped to reprise his role for four episodes in December 2005. His brief stint proved quite popular with fans of the show and was extended for a longer run. It appears that his successful return, combined with the successful return of Kimberly McCullough as Robin Scorpio have inspired GH producers to revisit the past as shortly afterwards, it was announced that Tristan Rogers (Robert Scorpio) would return for a six week run. Dippit 09:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

And this is a stub?
It seems to be a rather large one. 68.239.78.81 19:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added a 2005 section
Just so you know, Thanks dippit.

allie_collegegirl21 17:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of General Hospital
Is GH a For-profit hospital?--Attitude2000 03:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * good question...I don't think it has ever been established whether GH is for profit or non profit or whatever Dippit 11:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms
I think this needs a criticisms or controversy section (like the tendency to fire pregnant actresses I don't know anything about General Hospital so I would not make a good writer of that section, but it needs to be added.TrevorLSciAct 22:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Crticisms need to be integrated into the general text rather than broken out into a separate subsection per the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Rlquall 23:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul
I have overhauled this article and rewritten the 2005 and 2006 sections to make them shorter since history pages for General Hospital are currently being written. Please tell me what you think :) Dippit 09:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

History Of General Hospital??
Why did that person delete the History Of General Hospital? It's about past story developments & belongs on the GH page. Bring it back.
 * I don't know why the links to the pages were deleted, but I put a link to the page. Dippit 02:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Portal
Just noticed that the UK soaps (Coronation Street, EastEnders) etc all have portals. Maybe one can be made for General Hospital (and for the other soaps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dippit (talk • contribs) 07:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC).Dippit 07:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made oneDippit 07:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Article title
WP:TV-NC would seem to want this article to be named General Hospital (US television series). General Hospital could redirect there, or could lead to General Hospital (disambiguation). Personally I favor the latter, but could go either way. Any objections?

Jordan Brown 08:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Such a suggestion may need to go through WP:RM because of the number of pages listed on Special:Whatlinkshere/General Hospital. Remember what the last sentence of the first paragraph of WP:TV-NC says: "If the title of the television program is the most common usage of the phrase, let it be the title of the article." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also see Disambiguation. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sigh, didn't read enough - went straight to the programming section. (Which I did scan for exactly this question.)  Although I'm not comfortable with a real-world concept taking second billing to a work of fiction, I'll pragmatically admit that the TV show is probably what the user is looking for.


 * As I read Disambiguation, the preferred structure would seem to be
 * General Hospital (disambiguation) includes a link to General Hospital (US television series)
 * General Hospital (US television series) redirects to General Hospital
 * General Hospital is this article
 * General Hospital includes a link to General Hospital (disambiguation)
 * Right?


 * That would also allow the disambig page to use the simple form
 * General Hospital (US television series)
 * which would be nice.


 * Perversely, what got me started on this question was that I had difficulty finding this article. I searched for "general hospital", and that ended up (through a redirect at General hospital) at Hospital, with no link to a disambig page.  I don't remember exactly how I finally found my way here, but it involved several searches.  I changed that redirect - it was just too weird - and so at least that path to confusion is fixed.


 * Revised proposal: as described above.


 * Jordan Brown 08:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes to get here you have to make sure you type General Hospital with both first letters capitalized and not general hospital or General hospital.Dippit 03:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent)

It turns out that there was already a redirect at General Hospital (US TV Series), but WP:TV-NAME calls out "series" in lower case, and that doesn't match. I created General Hospital (US TV series), redirecting to General Hospital, and per WP:DAB linked General Hospital (disambiguation) to that redirect. Discuss at Talk:General Hospital (disambiguation) if necessary.

Jordan Brown 22:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Spinelli's On Screen Name
Whether or not they've been confirmed by the net work, what he's been called by his grandmother and by some of the adults count? I mean, I've been hearing called Damian for quite some time now. --Yllianos 16:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The name Damian/Damien/Damon/etc. has been used on-screen in four episodes (three in December, one in January), but there needs to be consistency within the page. The entries are typically that which are confirmed by the show's credits or (on occasion) legal documentation. On at least one occasion, Damon was clearly heard. Since ABC has (so far) refused to credit the character with a first name, it's going to be a guess at best. D&#39;Amico 12:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Supercouples/Couples Pages
I am putting together a page on the couples on the lists but wish for help and any history or links to backstory about a couple!!!

EMAIL ME AT:

aharri29@dtcc.edu

allie_collegegirl21 17:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding Couples
If you've reviewed the sections and want more couples than list them here first please...

allie_collegegirl21 17:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Couples sections
I have delteted the following articles, Lucky Spencer and Elizabeth Webber, Dillon and Georgie, Jason and Sam, Spinelli and Lulu, Jax and Brenda and Sonny and Brenda due to them all being copyright violations. I also removed most of the Sonny and Carly Corinthos page for the same reason. The others look OK but I would ask that the regular editors of these articles check for other copyright problems. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Current Plot Section
When I read the section about what currently going on in the program, it seems like some of the stuff is repeated unnecessarly. Since I don't usually edit this article, I just wanted to point it out. The section I'm referring to is about the hostage situation at the hotel.

By the way, I'm in Korea and watching on AFN. The show where Alan Quarterman dies hasn't aired yet, so I was shocked to find that out before hand. Davidpdx 06:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

- I think I fixed all this stuff. allie_collegegirl21 17:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why I archived this page...
This talk page was really long & things were asked and answered because people wouldn't read down the page. Summaries are written so everyone can find their information. I just wanted it archived so info'd be easier to get to.

allie_collegegirl21 17:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I need help with the couple pages
Please if you could write one page for a couple it would help make the section worthwhile. With all these pages unusable it isn't worth it and I am so busy with school right now.

allie_collegegirl21 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

New to page - 2005 section!!!
I put in a 2005 section since Dippit wrote is so well. It could be chopped down some into less text but having a 'year in review' is on alot of pages.

allie_collegegirl21 18:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

List of GH characters not complete
please make sure you put a:

Category:General Hospital characters

with the " "

around it at the bottom of all character, couple and guest star pages.

allie_collegegirl21 18:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars
Will someone please make up their minds when dealing with the coming and goings???? Everyday, there is someone adding the year to when Albert Weiland and Ted King, but then someone takes it off, someone adds it, someone takes it off. Why is there a big deal about this?? Let's keep the year on and keep it at that. Swinquest 14:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the edit wars should stop. The main problem seems to be that people are adding information from personal knowledge, which is against Wikipedia policy. The only information that should be added to this page, should be information that can be verified in a published source, and the source should be included when information is added to this page. Any unsourced information can be removed immediately. --Elonka 19:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To avoid more edit wars, Bradford Anderson and Kin Shriner are NOT Contract cast last I knew (Anderson refused his, Shriner hasn't been for a while) but someone moved them up with the Contract cast. I'm not going to move it back, I'll let you guys fix that because I don't like the chart thing, but I thought it should be mentioned. (DJ-Siren; April 11, 2007)
 * Anderson and Shriner keep getting moved around, as does Damon. Damon's contract is good until later this summer. Shriner hasn't been on contract with GH in, what, five years? (Technically Roché doesn't belong on the list either since his contract hasn't started yet, but I don't even want to start that battle.) D&#39;Amico 09:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Amelia, I can't remember the actress name off top of my head, but the character's Amelia, Sources have said all over the ABC boards that she is RECURRING as well, not contract. LoL. That's another war. DJ-Siren 00:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm moving Amelia back to recurring according to her official website on her resume she is RECURRING. http://www.anniewersching.com/home/index.php?location=resume DJ-Siren 08:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just found out, but not changing it until someone else decides if this is proof or not, Soap Opera Digest confirmed Bradford Anderson signed a multi year contract with GH. DJ-Siren 08:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Soap Opera Digest is proof, but you need to list which issue, which article. Like "Soap Opera Digest, February 20, 2007, 'News from the Front'" Or, if you got it off the website, link the exact URL: [http:// (whatever)] --Elonka 06:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And the edit wars continue. Someone keeps removing Annie Wersching and Kin Shriner from the recurring cast list to the current cast. Sometimes I wonder if it's worth it to have separate lists.MysticBlue 21:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to move the castmembers to a "List" page and see if that helps. --Elonka 23:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just as bad on the template. People think just because Amelia is on EVERY episode lately that she's on contract. When the only difference is really that contract players get paid whether they appear or not, recurring doesn't. But they need to realize that just because she's on every day does NOT mean she's contracted. I believe she's refused to contract anyway, not sure but I know her website still says she's recurring. And something tells me since they like to change it on the template, that splitting the list won't help anyway. DJ-Siren 02:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A few things I noticed - since when is John Ingle recurring? I hadn't heard any official source say he was bumped down to recurring. Second - I notice a lot of people use soaps.com for their official sources which soaps.com is a great site but they don't always have correct information so be careful what you take from them. They have been wrong about people returning a lot recently. 18:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.171.38 (talk • contribs)
 * When his contract was set to expire at the same time as Stuart Damon's around the time Stuart Damon got fired then brought back to finish out his contract as a ghost. DJ-Siren 19:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Unconfirmed information \ Jerry Jacks
I noticed that someone changed James Craig's name to Jerry Jack's simply because of what happened on today's episode (Jax received a phone call from "Jerry" and it turned out to be Craig on the phone). Until it is irrefutable, I don't think it should be assumed that Craig is really Jerry.
 * He IS Jerry. http://soaptalkscoops.proboards56.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=gh&thread=1177510236  "Guza says "that the thing that has to be explained is buried in the past. God knows he was a troublemaker. God knows he was unpredictable. But he never seemed quite as heinous as Craig was. The thing that will be explained in time is what turned Jerry Jacks. You will hear why his appearance changed. We will deal with that in story and you will know why."" DJ-Siren 00:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The show is always the final source. The show has confirmed that Sebastian Roché is currently under contract as Jerry Jacks. James Craig was a pseudonym, but he is now officially Jerry Jacks. (This was confirmed by ABC on-air on April 27 in the credits.) D&#39;Amico 02:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Lynn Herring's Rumored Return
Someone has been posting that Lynn Herring is returning to GH in May. I have searched the internet and have found no other information to substantiate this. Other sources have said this is only a rumor. MysticBlue 06:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The only information that should go into a Wikipedia article, is that which can be linked to a source, per WP:V. --Elonka 05:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Too many relationships
I think that things are starting to get out-of-hand with the character relationships. I'm seeing lists showing up that are covering tenuous relationships like "adoptive paternal half-cousin", on characters that aren't even in the show anymore! I think we need to come up with guidelines that specify that only notable relationships should be included. My recommendation is that we define this as: Immediate family, romantic history, plus relationships to individuals who are or have been part of a key storyline involving that character. --Elonka 21:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree somewhat. I still think we have to include the family members, grand and great grand parents and all. Also, for some characs, these relationships are kinda imp. For Example, Michael Corinthos has a lot of family members, through 3 different families and I think it is iportant to list them all since he interacts with all of them. Also, for situations such as Dillon or Lulu, their step-bro and step-sis should be listed since they are constantly reminded of it in the show. But in cass of where there have been abortions or miscarriages, I don't think these relationships need to be lsited anywhere except in the Parents' to be articles. Exception to this should be Baby Girl McCall since she should be referenced in the pages of Sam, Sonny, Alexis, Kristina, and Molly. I guess, instead of developing guidelines, we should use our judgment. -- Char leen mer ced  Talk  21:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree on grandchildren. And in terms of Michael Corinthos, if his character is interacting with other characters, then I'd agree that their relationships should be included. I recommend we move this discussion to the talkpage at WikiProject Soap Operas, and then we can use our judgment to come up with guidelines that can be used on all soaps, how's that? :) --Elonka 21:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Article improvement
I'd like to see about improving this article, and maybe getting it up to Good article status. So I thought I'd start this section about what needs to be done to improve it. Off the top of my head: For examples of what good soap opera articles can look like, see EastEnders and Coronation Street. I'd like to see that we could get at least one American soap opera article up to the same standard. It would take some work to get there, but I think it would be worth the effort, especially if we could actually get the article about the Greatest Soap Opera of All Time, up to Featured status and onto the Wikipedia mainpage. :) Anybody interested in giving it a try?  If so, please sign on below,  and also free to make other suggestions about how this article could be improved. --Elonka 04:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It needs better referencing. There is way too much information in this article that is coming from personal knowledge, and this type of situation is leading to edit wars.  I believe that if we get stricter about requiring solid sources, the edit wars will decrease.
 * Too many lists. The information is useful, but an article is more than just multiple lists of information.  I recommend that the lists be moved out to separate "List" articles, and that we just keep a brief overview of the information here, with a link to the list.
 * Inappropriate sections. The "Couples" and "Comings and goings" sections seem to be magnets for original research and edit wars.  I recommend getting rid of them entirely.  If a couple is notable, they can be covered in the character lists and storyline sections.


 * Judging from those 2 pages, you would have to put it back to how it was when they had the different decades on the main page, then link in other pages for the Cast, Awards, Ratings etc. lists. Could be done rather easily, but would it be left that way is the question?DJ-Siren 02:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree about removing "Couples", but I think "Comings and Goings" should stay. Zackfins54 05:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all your suggestions, Elonka. MysticBlue 07:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

List of General Hospital cast members
Per the above discussion, I'm recommending that we move everything in the "Cast" section, to a new article, List of General Hospital castmembers. We already have a List of General Hospital characters, but the new page will list in the same format as we have now (by actor name) instead of by character name. --Elonka 06:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done on the new page for the list of cast members, Elonka. My only nitpick is you have "cast members" as one word when it should be two. LOL. ;-) MysticBlue 07:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The list is now at List of General Hospital cast members, and I also added some text at the top to try and clarify the difference between "contract" and "recurring" status.  Please feel free to expand!  :) --Elonka 09:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This will be fun to keep, as I already re-split it once today. DJ-Siren 01:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, someone has put the list back on the main page again, and, as usual, they've put Kin Shriner and Annie Wersching back on the contract cast list.MysticBlue 05:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've requested some temporary semi-protection at WP:RPP, which would prevent anons from editing the page for awhile. Assuming that the protection is granted, that should help us put a freeze on the anon edits, to give us time to reorganize things.  --Elonka 06:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You rock, Elonka.- ;-) MysticBlue 08:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks. :)  Alright, the article is protected from edits by new or anon editors for one week.  Let's see how much cleanup we can get done in that time.  :) --Elonka 18:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The list is back, this time a registered user is responsible. I don't know how to revert it back to the way you had it, Elonka. How is this page ever going to make any sense if people keep coming in and changing it again? And they keep putting Kin Shriner and Annie Wersching in the contracted cast list. Arrgh! --MysticBlue 22:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I've also left a note on his talkpage.  And yes,  I know it's frustrating and feels a bit like "herding cats," but we can do it. :)  The thing to do is to just keep working on the article, revert as necessary, and talk as much as possible.  Talking is good here at the discussion page,  because it proves consensus.  And it's good to leave messages on users' talkpages, to help educate them on "the wiki-way."  With as many anon editors who participate here, it's actually my hope that if we can educate them on the right way to do things, we could have a sizable "wiki-army" to sweep through the soaps articles here.  We could definitely use the help!  But there'll probably be a lot of teaching between here and there.  :) --Elonka 00:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Production and Awards Sections
If you were to split these out, you'll notice like the cast list at first, they'll end up back in, however I believe it would drastically improve the overall look of the article. Lists get annoying to navigate through like this. I would call the Producers and Writers page "General Hospital Production Teams" or something rather than "List of General Hospital producers" however. DJ-Siren 00:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm open to that name, if we can make an actual article about it, like with paragraphs of text. But if all we're doing is moving the list there, then, well, it should be called a list. --Elonka 03:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * True, I wasn't completely thinking straight. But regardless, I think the less lists in the MAIN article, the better quality that article will be. Not only does it make it look better, but it leaves open room for more information in the sense of the article itself. DJ-Siren 20:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Effort should be made on taking care fo this, as well as the Awards section. --Lendorien 15:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Information
This person has been starting character pages (and adding to current ones) with inaccurate information and using questionable links as sources. I've done some cleaning up here and there, but I'm sure there's a lot more to be done. I've noticed on their talk page that they've been flagged several times, too. MysticBlue 10:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Rumors are not fact
Rumors are not fact until they are confirmed by GH and/or ABC. More often than not, they are created from someone's active imagination or wishful thinking. For instance, Tom Selleck joining the cast as Jeff Webber? The only place I could find this information is a little known soap forum which is hardly a reliable source. MysticBlue (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Accidental removal when editing
Tried to put in http://www.soapcentral.com/gh/news/2007/0521-clifton.php as a citation for Clifton leaving sometime this summer, and it screwed everything up, dunno what I did wrong. DJ-Siren 01:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me... Did you figure out how to fix it? --Elonka 02:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was tagging it wrong, I just coppied the tag someone used for Annie Wersching (sp?) and replaced the things appropriately. I had tried to put the tag in WAY wrong. DJ-Siren 03:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ratings
Does anyone know where all the detailed ratings information came from? It's a big section of the article, but doesn't seem to have any references. I recommend that we delete it all, and just link to whatever site is maintaining that info. --Elonka 02:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Couples
Not everyone and their dog are considered a notable couple. I recently took out yet another "supercouple" list which included of course the current ones. I think that MOST would be in agreement that the major ones (Luke/Laura, Alan/Monica, Frisco/Felicia) are the only ones really needing to be listed. And the "supercouple" times ended with the first Lucky/Liz situation (when Jackson was still Lucky). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a point in listing EVERY couple ever on GH as a "notable couple". —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ-Siren (talk • contribs) 04:21, June 15, 2007 DJ-Siren 05:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think we need to get very strict about sources here.  If anyone wants to add a couple to the list, they need to also add a link to a source that affirms that couple's notability.  If there's no source, then the information should be deleted on the spot, per WP:V. --Elonka 16:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alan and Monica Quartermaine's link page in wikipedia, is an exact copy of the General Hospital main page in wikipedia. Just bringing it to attention. DJ-Siren 20:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's just a redirect from that name to here. If you look right under the article title, in small print, it'll say where it's redirected from. --Elonka 21:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonexistent characters
Who IS this person that's inventing all these characters that have never existed on GH? So far, I've found Lindsay Maria Spencer and Robert Justin Scorpio. Not only is it vandalism, it's just downright sad. Does this person not have anything better to do? MysticBlue 22:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * is the culprit, and has also been uploading a lot of pictures and trying to replace them on top of existing fair use shots. Their talkpage is filling up with warnings, and if they continue, they'll be blocked for vandalism.  In some ways they seem like a new editor, but they also seem to have way too much familiarity with Wikipedia systems...  New editors wouldn't usually be savvy enough to update a template and multiple "links here" pages all at once.  I think we've got a bonafide soap troll.  --Elonka 00:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, yay, I just love trolls. MysticBlue 09:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like the damage is a bit more extensive than I'd thought -- they also apparently were adding information as an anon. I could use help from people scanning all the contribs of, to help clean up the damage.  And if you spot any other accounts that were used, let's add them here to keep a central repository. --Elonka 22:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

We have another person with nothing better to do going around the GH character profiles and adding characters that have never existed on the show. Keep an eye out for the work of .MysticBlue (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Contract Characters Listing
I see the problems that this page has with the recurring characters list, so I want to pose this question on the talk page instead of changing it without knowing for sure: Are the people currently on GH:Night Shift still on Contract Status with GH? Since Night Shift was to have a limited run, I'm certain it's possible. Walkerb4 00:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Contracts with GH and Contracts with Nightshift are 2 different things, as they are two completely different shows. Exmaple: Sonya Eddy is contracted to nightshift but NOT to GH. DJ-Siren 07:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you like Sonya Eddy, I have good news -- she is under contract now, as confirmed by the August 24, 2007, episode of the show. She was just recently upped to contract status (also refered to in the August 28, 2007, issue of SOD on page 15). It's too bad that she's finally upped to contract as Stan takes a powder again. If they recast, that's four Stans in what -- a year? D&#39;Amico 11:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup - To Do
The following things need to be done for this page (add to list as needed): --Lendorien 15:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong effort needs to be made to provide proper sourcing for this page. It seems some effort was made in the past to do so, but much of it was stripped out over time. As it stands now, it is completely unsourced.
 * 2) Need to generate new page List of Executive Producers and Head Writers and move data to it as well as write a synopsis of that information for the main page.
 * 3) Need to generate new page List of General Hospital awards and move data to it as well as write a synopsis of that information for the main page.
 * 4) Perhaps add more info on the impact the show has had on television.


 * THIS IS FUCKING DUMB! KEEP IT ON THE GH MAIN PAGE- IT'S RELATIVE TO GH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.104.73 (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The use of language is not appreciated. Besides, what were you referring to? --Lendorien (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nurses Ball
I wish there was an article about the annual AIDS awareness charity benefit, which lasted from 1994 to 2001. NBK1122 (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge or deletion of Children of General Hospital?
I stumbled across this article: Children of General Hospital. Besides needing a lot of copyedit and general work to make it even half-way presentable, what do you all think about it being merged into General Hospital? Or perhaps even deletion?

Don't bite me too hard. This is the first suggestion like this I have done, so please bear with me if I am totally off base. :)

Silverwolf85 (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * let's see what happen in the couple of weeks if the article gets better or if it is not touch. --M42380 (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. I don't even remember how I came across this page, but when I saw, I figured I would give it a try...
 * Silverwolf85 (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, character and other lists need to stay separate from the main article, which is already lengthy. During article reviews we've learned that such lists make articles unwieldy and negatively impact their quality on the assessment scale. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 04:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, makes sense to me. Thank you for your input!Pax85 (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not??? merge the children article with the main List of General Hospital characters article. it doesnt make snese to separate the children out since tehcnically ALL of the characters are children of other characters in the show. Smith Jones (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The children are the future of this show and are expanding more each other. you would see them more on screen when they grow up and get actors.--M42380 (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Senior Cast Members
I added Denise Alexander as a senior cast member, being that she was first seen in 1972. I am not too familiar with this subject, so I'm not sure if this is determined by a certain amount of years (Alexander had a 12-year absence from 1984-1996), or if the cast members have to be on contract. So if there is somebody who knows about this, then let me know. Thank you. --OLTL2002 (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked a similar question here. In cases where there are no original cast members left, I'm unsure what qualifies someone as a senior cast member. As far as I know, Leslie Charleson is the only cast member who hasn't left the show for extended periods of time since joining in the seventies.
 * Personally, I think Denise Alexander doesn't qualify since she isn't on contract, but there certainly isn't a hard and fast rule that says she can't be included. Actually, there isn't even a guideline for us to reference. A  ni  Mate  20:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Senior Cast Members Part 2
Over the past few weeks, there has been concern over who the senior cast members are. Though Kimberly McCullough has a long history with GH, she has spent a total of six years away from the show (not counting brief reprisals in 2000 and 2004, and in 2001 on AMC). If McCullough were to be listed as a senior cast member, then we would have to add that of Denise Alexander, Kin Shriner, Rick Springfield, Finola Hughes, John J. York, Steve Burton, Maurice Benard, and John Ingle, all of whom have spent time away (excluding York). That is too many to list. This is an encyclopedia, and therefore, such information isn't necessary to begin with. Thank you! --OLTL2002 (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Kimberly McCullough spent 20 years or more playing the role of Robin Scorpio so she should be added to the list and it doesn't matter if she was gone for 6 years or not what part of that don't you understand? She started in 1985 when she was like what 7 years old and she's now 30. She should be a senior cast member, Bob Woods spent two years away, so why is he listed as a senior cast member on One Life to Live and not Kimberly McCullough? John J. York, Maurice Benard, Steve Burton are vetrans but they are not senior cast members. Denise Alexander, and Kin Shriner are on recurring so they can't be on the senior cast members list. P.J. (talk) 05:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you not know how to count. McCullough has only been on for 17 years. 1985-1997, 1997-1999, and 2005-present. And this isn't One Life to Live. Bottom line, McCullough is NOT a senior cast member. --OLTL2002 (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

She was on the show for 20 years, 1985-1997 that is 12 years, 1997-1999, add that all together that is 14, years, 2000, 2004, add that that will be 16 years add 2005-present, that is 20 years including 2005. See I'm right all along, AGAIN. She is a senior cast member. P.J. (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there are 365 days in a one year period, and seeing as how McCullough only did a FEW days in '00 and ONE day in '04, that doesn't count as a year. Also, her time on All My Children was TWO days, so we are looking at a total of approximately 6-10 days between 1999 and 2005. And her 1997-1999 stint was only for a year, not two. That is 17 years. Thank you. --OLTL2002 (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't matter how many days are in a year, she has been on the show for 20 years. She is a senior cast member. P.J. (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, but one day doesn't make a year. Heck, it doesn't even make a week. SHE IS NOT A SENIOR!!! Maybe in five years, yes. But now? Nope. --OLTL2002 (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

She is a senior cast member. P.J. (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with OLTL2002. When you leave a job and come back, you lose seniority. The only consistent senior cast member is Leslie Charleson. Also, just saying, "She is a senior cast member" is quite possibly the least helpful or effective argument you could possibly make. A  ni  Mate  21:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine P.J. (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Cast section
Uh, this entire section is unsourced POV/original research ... pretty much EVERY soap has brought back former cast members, and please show me an magazine article that singles out GH as "making a name for itself" doing this. Perhaps some these returns are notable in the context of a section written about the series' history as a whole, but the way it is now this is just an excuse for a fan to show off some trivia. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 02:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've boldly removed the section here. Bits of it may be incorporated into a series history article later if necessary, but on its own it's just trivia assembled to make an unsourced and nonexistent point. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 20:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to "Main crew members" section
The article currently says two different people named Ron Cates have directed episodes. Can anybody confirm? It's difficult to believe an editor would make such a glaring mistake, as the names are listed in the same sentence. Ottre 12:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't quote me on this, but I believe I once saw in a magazine that there are two GH directors with that name, father and son. But I may be remembering wrong. I'll do a search on the web later on. --OLTL2002 (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Longest-running soap opera in production
While I granted that technically, the GBOR did recognise General Hospital as being the longest-running series, it's a sad fact that either (a) GBOR is wrong or (b) the fact is being portrayed from a overly American point of view. It should actually state that the series is the longest running in the history of American television (assuming it's true) as there are other soaps that have been running for longer (e.g. Coronation Street, which started in 1960) Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 05:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find any mention of GH on Guinness's online World Records site but if they claim GH is the longest-running show--even longest-running US show, they're wrong. As The World Turns debuted April 2, 1956.  But, the assertion on the GH wiki page (that GBOWR claims it's the second longest running show) is true, now that Guiding Light has been canceled.  True, as you say, from a US perspective.  Shall we just edit the word "American" or "US" in between "longest-running" and "soap opera"? Cellorelio (talk) 9:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless it's really well hidden, GBOR does not say anything about GH. It only lists the longest running show in US history, which is Guiding Light.  Despite GL 's cancellation, it still holds the record, and will continue to do so until either ATWT surpasses it in 2013, or ATWT is canceled and GH surpasses it in 2020.  GH is indeed now the second-longest running CURRENTLY AIRING show in the U.S.  I added that specification to the intro.--207.180.154.114 (talk) 05:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is GH page protected?
I've got a question, why is the page on General Hospital on wikipedia is protected? This is supposed to be the Free Encyclopedia, not the un-free.Shkarter1985 (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You, being a registered user, should have no trouble making edits... As far as I know, the "Protection" on the article is to keep unregistered users from vandalizing the article. Hope that clears things up for you!

Blozier2006 (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Theme song info
Where can I find out information regarding theme songs the show has used since 2004? The section of the article outlining title sequences makes no mention of theme changes after the 1993-2004 section (the "Faces of the Heart" era)...

Blozier2006 (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Title sequence
Isn't it about time that this section was massively edited? Right now this section contains a whopping 20,758 characters (give or take) with one citation announcing a new title sequence and another that points to Google Maps (hello original research). I doubt anyone could find a source for the majority of what is in there because no one thinks it's notable except fans. Unless someone can come up with a reliable source for this, I plan on making massive, massive edits to this section in the next week. AniMate 08:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think an outsider, who doesn't watch or know the soap should be making such "massive edits". And you need to give more than one single week to go in and edit such a section. It's a large section to dedicate time to, and I'd rather an actual fan of the series do it than an outside. That's my two-cents. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 17:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What in the world makes you think I don't watch the show? Just because I don't treat Wikipedia as a forum to discuss the show, doesn't mean I'm a fan. Besides, anyone can edit any article. Rather than attack me you should bring some actual sources to the table, which I seriously doubt you can do. The information is trivial, unreferenced, overly detailed and needs to be deleted. AniMate 19:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes you so sure that I couldn't find some actual sources? I'm not incompetent. And just because we may do a bit a foruming does make us the bad people you seem to be insinuating us to be. So don't tell me what I can and cannot do with a source. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 19:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there are probably sources that support a much shorter version about the title sequence, but what is there right now really is too much. All of the detail in the section is really unsupportable. AniMate 20:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then erase the whole section then if you believe that. I'm not saying it isn't over-worded. Never denied that fact. And there are sources about the shorter edit, hence why I put the source in myself. Music Freak 7676 TALK! 20:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi guys! I'm currently at work so I can't really do anything about it at the moment. As soon as it's possible for me to do so, I'll take a look at it and contact you on your respective talk pages about my suggestions. The title sequence section is huge and cannot be analyzed in a just a span of a few minutes. Time has to be dedicated for such task. Don't know when exactly when this will be, but hopefully it will within the next few days. Take care. Farine (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

On the next section, I have put on bold what I personally think should be erased. Of course, these are only suggestions so take it as you will. Regards! Farine (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of the ideas that you have made. I think we should go ahead with your edit plan! Music Freak 7676 TALK! 17:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I was waiting if Soapfan2013 and Animate would share their views before making any change. But it's been three days since then so I've decided to go along with the changes. If Soapfan2013, Animate or any other editor feel that more should be removed, then feel free to do so. Likewise, if you think that I have removed more that I should have, you can refer to the next section on this talk page to restore the content; it has the original content of Title sequences section. Farine (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

April 1963 - November 1963
In the early episodes of 1963, General Hospital used a scene of doctors and nurses going about their business in the hospital, which then freezes and turns into a negative image, with the title appearing in the Craw Clarendon Condensed font (which remained the same until 1993). Accompanying this was a piano piece by Kip Walton.

'''Mid-bumpers and closing sequences from day one featured the show's title, in the same font and size, centered on the screen against a black background. In the closings, a second sponsor plug would be included after the title, which would then return to the black screen where the credits would start running. In the first several years, credits would be carded one at a time for the most part on Monday-Thursday episodes; after production principals, the top billing stars would be credited (during this era, they were mainly John Beradino, Emily McLaughlin, Rachel Ames, Peter Hansen and Patricia Breslin).'''

On Fridays, the entire credit setup would scroll, with full cast and crew. The top-billing stars would still appear in their stacked format during the scroll, as they did on carded days (with actors' name, "as" and their characters' name all on separate lines) while supporting players would appear with their characters' name positioned to the left followed by periods, with the actors' names listed below in capitals over on the right. '''All crew credits would be centered. The final display of the General Hospital title in all broadcasts would scroll up itself to include the Selmur Productions ident at the end of the sequence.'''

The last episode to use this title, on November 22, 1963 was likely pre-empted by ABC as the news of the assassination and death of President John F. Kennedy was unfolding during the afternoon.

November 1963 - April 1975
Nearly eight months into General Hospital's run, the nurses' station opening sequence was changed in favor of a more simple display. At the end of the prologue, the first few notes of the opening theme began playing as the scene dissolved into a black screen, with the show's title appearing on it, centered. '''The same visual would remain on the screen for the length of the brief opening theme tune, save for a cut-in to a sponsor plug, and virtually only as long as the network announcer's (later Ed Chandler's) spiel. This second theme package was basically an expansion of the visual format used in the mid-bumpers and closing since the show's premiere.''' When the program moved to color in late October 1967, the black background used for all the visuals changed to blue, but otherwise the package would go unchanged for its entire run. The arrival of this first long-running setup for General Hospital brought a revised version of the April–November 1963 theme, in a higher pitch and faster melody, which was also composed by Kip Walton.

The same mid-bumpers and closing credits format from the first package remained in place. The Selmur Productions ident continued to appear at the conclusion of the credits every episode until 1968, when ABC bought complete ownership of General Hospital.

1975-1993
On April 14, 1975 as commissioned by ABC, General Hospital and One Life to Live both unveiled new title sequences, with creative aspects handled by their respective executive producers. Longtime executive producer James Young decided to return to a more elaborate style of opening, turning to the local General Hospital of the Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center, located just east of Downtown Los Angeles (Google Street View image from outside the gate:[12]), for videotaped exteriors. It consisted of an ambulance rushing through the gates of the medical center, followed by the show's title zooming outward from the view of the hospital. This shot was used from 1975 to 1993, and remained relatively unchanged between those years.

The sequence's theme song was led prominently by George Wright's piano theme from no later than Monday, April 14, 1975 until Friday, July 23, 1976. Then on Monday, July 26, 1976, the theme music was changed to "Autumn Breeze" by Jack Urbont, with the horns throughout the opening sequence (the 1975 opening sequence would remain the same). The graphic details of the opening would see only one alteration, in 1978, when the lettering of the show's zooming title became smaller. It is one of the longest running soap opera theme/visuals in history, with only the 1970–1989 theme/visuals of All My Children and Days of our Lives' 1972-93 package ahead of it. The sequence from 1978 was used until the last episode of General Hospital with the Autumn Breeze theme aired on March 31, 1993.

'''The closing credits during this long era were done over nearly the same exterior of the LA County-USC Medical Center, with the main difference here being a blue-sky/cloud visual, as opposed to the opening having a clear, sunny sky. Occasionally a closer pan of the hospital was used, but it became more common in the early 1980s and was used almost exclusively from 1983 until 1993. The Craw Clarendon Condensed credits continued the tradition of carding dayplayers one at a time on certain days, with the actors' name on top, the "as" on the middle line and character name below. On other days, a long crawl credits format also remained. No earlier than the start of the LA-USC Medical Center visuals era, scrolling cast credits became reformatted where the actors name appeared first in capitals, positioned to the left and followed by periods, with their character's name seen below in mostly lowercase, set on the right. Copyright notice first appeared at the end of all episodes in 1980, in a small capitalized font. By late 1981, the notice began appearing in capitalized Helvetica font, and would remain this way through the fall of 1982.'''

'''In the fall of 1982, the closing format was updated so that now the credits ran on a chyron. The creators' credit, which had long consisted of "Frank and" on one line, and "Doris Hursley" below it, now became "Frank &" with "Doris Hursley" underneath. The end credits became smaller, and the carded dayplayer setup now used the long-crawl formatting with the actors' name followed by periods, with character name below. From this point on, the more inward shot of the hospital was used full time. The copyright notice, which currently consisted of "(c) (year) American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.", was changed to small, capitalized Craw Clarendon Condensed, on two lines. Around the episode marking General Hospital's 20th anniversary in April 1983, "All Rights Reserved" was added below the copyright notice, in small, capitalized Helvetica. Between December 1983 and February 1984, the space between General and Hospital in the closing title displays was removed, so that the title was stacked together; and, "Frank & Doris Hurley" became "Frank And Doris" on one line, with "Hursley" below. At the beginning of 1985, Gloria Monty finally became credited as "Executive Producer", replacing the simple "Produced By" title which had been a standard from the early days of TV.'''

'''By 1989, the carded credits format had long become occasional, and ceased during that year. Thereafter, on days that had short closings, the credits scrolled production principals only up until the role of associate producer, which would then be followed by the closing title display and copyright. Beginning in September 1989, on long crawl days listing the cast, John Beradino and Emily McLaughlin's credits scrolled on screen one at a time before the rest of the cast, which were listed in the large group. This was a nod by then-executive producer H. Wesley Kenney to Beradino and McLaughlin's seniority to the program. When actress Emily McLaughlin died in 1991, Beradino was listed alone before the rest of the cast, with Rachel Ames now always leading first on the main cast list.'''

1993-2004
February 1993, eleven months into her tenure as executive producer, Wendy Riche made her most visible change as she decided to retire the long-running 1976 opening in favor of something new. Her creative team went to work on new opening visuals that would serve as the final component in bringing General Hospital into the 1990s. Videotaped shots of the cast, along with the enveloping graphics scheme, were completed in March, and the new visuals and theme music made their debut on April 1, 1993 General Hospital's 30th anniversary show. The new opening music, "Faces Of The Heart" by jazz artist Dave Koz, was partially based on the melody of Jack Urbont's "Autumn Breeze".

The theme begins with a heartbeat rhythm played on a bass guitar as we dissolve to a shot of an ambulance. That, in turn, dissolves into a tinted, letterboxed view of the exterior of the LA County-USC Medical Center in Los Angeles, California. This is followed by a series of video headshots of all the contract cast members, either solo or in pairs, against a red background. '''After every few clips, there is an action clip from the show. At the end of the sequence, we go back to the letterboxed, tinted hospital exterior and the title of the show in Goudy Bold type.''' For the 32nd Anniversary week in April 1995, the theme was remixed with a longer version with a reprise at the end, also the cast montage had a major update, which several cast members received new footage and new Puerto Rico action scenes were added. On the show's 40th anniversary on April 1, 2003 the characters’ first names were added to the opening.

'''For several weeks into the new "Faces of the Heart" package, the end credits remained in the same Craw Clarendon Condensed type used in past years. Now, however, the long crawl was done over stills from that day's episode. In one of the last episodes to use the Craw Clarendon Condensed, the closing credits were actually turned red, experimentally, to represent the color of the show's new visual image. By no later than early May 1993, the credits resumed being white and were now in Goudy font, to match the new General Hospital title logo. Short credit sequences either ran over episode stills or a variation of the red-tinted view of the hospital seen in the opening. This exterior background had motion effects that slowly pulled outward from the LA-USC building. From March 1996 to September 1999, each end credit segment was done in smaller lettering on a separate card for each still. The separate card setup is still used in the end titles shown on SoapNet rebroadcasts, but the credits are done over a shot of the hospital.'''

2004-2010
'''During the May 2004 sweeps, ABC Daytime began a significant re-branding process. New graphics and new promotional bumpers were created, and the visuals in the new promos were incorporated into new openings that were unveiled on all three ABC soaps in subsequent weeks.''' On August 30, 2004 General Hospital unveiled a new opening that incorporated many of the character visuals used in a new set of ABC Daytime promos and bumpers that debuted in May 2004. The nods to the show's past seem quite minimal in this new opening as we get only an extremely brief glimpse of an ambulance and an almost equally brief upward pan of the hospital exterior. This new opening sequence ends with a shot of the male cast members clad in tuxedos and posing against a white background, with Anthony Geary walking out of the shot, followed by the title of the show. The portion featuring the male cast members remained the same throughout this version's use, in spite of the fact that most of the cast members featured there such as Ted King, M'fundo Morrison, and Scott Clifton had left the show by the time it was retired. Though departing actors continued to be removed from the main part of the sequence as needed, no new actors were added from July 2007 until the version's retirement in February 2010. Contract actors such as Claire Coffee, Sarah Brown, Natalia Livingston (who was previously featured in the opening as Emily and later returned as Rebecca) and Nazanin Boniadi came and went without ever appearing in this opening.

The title appears in white letters in a single line across the screen against a black background, which is framed by letterboxing. On April 20, 2009 this sequence was updated slightly - the open was stretched (and later cropped) to fill the 16x9 picture ratio for the show's move to HD, but the video quality of the opening was still in standard definition.It is during this era that main technical credits (including the day's producer, director, etc.) and the Hursleys' creative credit (even though they had passed away years previously) began to appear during the opening prologue scene, a practice only two other soaps (The Young and the Restless, which are split between the prologue and first act in their case, and All My Children) utilize; One Life to Live's technical credits appear after their opening credits.

2010-present
On February 23, 2010 General Hospital debuted its newly revamped opening credits, in high definition, in honor of the series' 12,000th episode. It features brand new shots of the cast members, '''which were shot in September 2009, and featured the long-awaited debut opening sequence shots for several cast members that had been apart of the series since Fall 2007. Such characters included, in order of initiation to contract cast, Sonya Eddy, Brandon Barash, Jason Cook, Nathan Parsons, Drew Garrett, Dominic Zamprogna, Lexi Ainsworth, and Lisa LoCicero, as well as the re-introduction of Jonathan Jackson. The opening was updated in April 2010 with the recasting of Michael Corinthos III, now played by Chad Duell, proving the new opening will be prompt with updates.''' The opening starts out with the word "General" going left, then giving a shot of virtual Port Charles. Next there is a picture of a siren and then the cast are shown as in its former style. With each character, the actor and character names are displayed, with character-themed background footage (such as Spoon Island behind Nikolas and the Haunted Star casino behind Luke). Following the character shots, Anthony Geary is seen turning away from the camera, as in the previous opening package. The credits end with the show logo, now in Goudy Old Style font, backgrounded by another skyline shot.[10] The theme music from the previous sequence was carried over into this sequence.

'''With this sequence, the contract cast members' names began to appear during the opening credits, a practice only two other soaps (The Young and the Restless, though that show does not list all contract cast members, and The Bold and the Beautiful) currently utilize; all other soaps list their cast's names in the closing credits for one episode each week. The opening also utilizes character names as well, something only one other soap (The Bold and the Beautiful) does.'''

'''On May 24, 2010, a second opening debuted featuring Brianna Brown and Scott Reeves in place of Sonya Eddy and Jason Cook. Initially, rumors were rampant that the latter two had been released from their contracts but it was later shown that, for the first time, General Hospital was utilizing more than one opening in order to compensate for their sprawling cast. This remains the case as of August 11, 2010 when the series continued to utilize more than one opening and added Vanessa Marcil Giovinazzo, who had returned to the show, to the sequence. One version of the opening includes Brianna Brown, Scott Reeves, and Leslie Charleson while the other has Sonya Eddy, Jason Cook, and John Ingle.'''

'''The opening was updated in October 2011, once again, adding new cast additions Sean Blakemore and Kelly Sullivan, and removed past cast members Ingo Rademacher, Tyler Christopher and Brianna Brown. Two versions of the opening continue to air, one featuring Leslie Charleson, and the other featuring Sonya Eddy.'''

On February 1, 2012 the technical credits were updated and moved to after the opening from before in a similar manner to One Life to Live, due to Frank Valentini becoming the executive producer for the series.

On March 5, 2012 the series debuted a shorter, faster opening. The theme music was replaced by a more faster theme, used during their old bumpers and General Hospital: Night Shift. A spokesperson for the series confirmed that the shortened opener would be used until a brand new opener would debut in the coming weeks.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not consensus. That means this is somewhere between no consensus and not moved; either way, nothing is moving. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * General Hospital → General Hospital (TV series)

– This a popular and long-running TV series, but it is not the primary topic for the term, as shown by Google News and Google Books searches. (Per WP:COMMONAME, Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources.) Since most of the institutions called "Foo General Hospital" capitalise the term, the use of capitals in the title does not remove the ambiguity. After the move, the page General Hospital should be redirected to the disambiguation page at General hospital. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the page is moved, WhatLinksHere indicates that about 2000 page links will have to be fixed. I also somehow do not really understand how the "Foo General Hospital" example is relevant. Wouldn't most readers immediately first enter "Foo" into the search engine looking for a specific general hospital? For example, it would seem to me that most people looking for Southampton General Hospital or Massachusetts General Hospital would enter "Southampton" or "Massachusetts", respectively, first, not "general hospital" first. Thus, that assumption based solely on the results on Google News and Google Books may not be completely accurate. Google News and Google Books still behaves like a search engine and should also be analyzed with a search engine test. In most of the Google Books and Google News results I see, most of them refer to a specific "Foo General Hospital", which again, most people would normally enter "foo" not "general hospital" first. Most of the other Google News results I see primarily refer to the TV series. I only see little or no results that specifically refer to the concept of general hospitals in general, or any other topic. Thus I cannot fully support this page move proposal at this time because this analysis of the results, plus the current status of WhatLinksHere, only concludes that the TV series is the primary topic -- it is highly likely to be the topic sought when a reader first enters "general hospital" into a search engine. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per the questions raised by Zzyzx11. When editors link to or look up "General Hospital", what are they most likely to mean? We exclude partial title matches from consideration when it comes to determining a primary topic; these will not be included on a disambiguation page anyway, so there is no benefit to the reader in considering them. Also, if the page is moved, it should be to a punctuated "U.S." bd2412  T 16:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as others have indicated, this is the primary topic for "General Hospital." Someone looking for Mass. General Hospital would search for the that title, not this one.  Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. A "general hospital" is a type of hospital, and a significant encyclopedic topic in its own right. It seems odd that some editors are claiming that a TV series about a topic is more prominent than the topic itself. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The "topic" is a nuance, the differentiation between it and other types of hospitals takes 2 sentences to explain in the hospital article. As BD2412 and Hot Stop point out above, in the case of a Wikipedia search users will most likely be looking for the TV series and not a type of hospital.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 00:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment if this is to be renamed, it should be to General Hospital (U.S. TV series) because we have a General Hospital (UK TV series). "General Hospital (TV series)" should redirect to the disambiguation page. Also, regardless of whether this page is renamed or not, the redirect to the disambiguation page should be created. -- 70.24.244.51 (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support move to General Hospital (U.S. TV series). The primary meaning, capitalised or uncapitalised, is the type of hospital. If users are looking for a specific hospital then they probably will type in the name, but they could also be looking for a definition of a general hospital (which is also, incidentally, a type of British Army medical unit, bearing a number instead of a name). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Any person searching for just "General Hospital"(capitalized or not) is searching for the soap opera. If one is searching on Google, the first 16 results are all from the television show. If one is looking for a specific hospital, they will be searching for that one. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And they won't be searching to see what a general hospital is, no? I think they might be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, no. I doubt that very much. Who is going to search for a general hospital to find out the types of Hospitals? Do you really believe moving this page and directing it to this page benefits either this encyclopedia or it's readers? I do not. If one wants to know about the differnt types of hospitals, there is a page for that. It's called the Hospital article. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Who is going to search for a general hospital to find out the types of hospitals? Nobody. Who is going to search for a general hospital to find out what a general hospital is? Quite a few people, I should imagine. The clue is in the name and in the fact that the TV series is called that because it's set in, wait for it, a general hospital! It's clearly the primary meaning of "general hospital"! Do I believe this benefits the encyclopaedia and its readers? Indeed I do, otherwise I obviously wouldn't be supporting it, would I! -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A "general" hospital, by definition, is a hospital that is "general"; i.e., any hospital that is not specialized or limited to some area of practice. I don't think people will look up "general hospital" any more than they will look up nonspecialized hospital or general practice hospital. Moreover, I don't think people looking for the concept of a "general" will tend to type it out with the specific capitalization, General Hospital. Finally, if some few happen to do that, they will likely not be surprised to come to an article on the famous soap opera, and there's a hatnote right there that already serves the purpose of a disambiguation page, as it points them to the concept of a "general hospital". bd2412  T 22:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, completely disagree with you. I still maintain that the primary meaning of "general hospital" is a general hospital and will continue to do so. I do think people will look up the type of hospital. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Confusing and non-distinct name. A capital letter is not enough to distinguish it from the primary General hospital --Rushton2010 (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support subject to someone committing to fix the incoming links. A capital letter is not enough to disambiguate, searches are usually case insensitive. However, the advantage of this move does not outweight the disadvantage of broken wiki links if they are not quickly fixed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support move to General Hospital (U.S. TV series) - Rushton2010 and SmokeyJoke sum the situation up quite well. This is not sufficiently distinct and unique in its capitalised form to distinguish it from General hospital. However, as there is more than one TV series, per the general guideline at WP:NCF (concerning Titanic (film) in that example), we should not use partial disambiguation, and should include "U.S." to distinguish it from the UK series. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe it was an honest mistake, but for the sake of this discussion it should be pointed out that Amakuru preemptively began mass-changing links in favor of this move. As Amakuru states here, he/she intended to correct the issue brought up by Zzyzx11 that there are 2000 links to this article that would need to be changed. Amakuru stopped the process when challenged and I don't believe this discussion was negatively influenced, but I've pointed out the issue to Amakuru and want it to be on the record here.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 01:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting this here, . Had I gone ahead and completed the link changes, I would certainly have noted that here. As it is, I will revert them all within the next few days, and hopefully no harm is done. I've posted a full reply to try to explain the situation on my talk page here: . Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd pointed out the Amakuru matter below, TAnthony, when I "voted" after you. Flyer22 (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: I have now completed the reversion of the pages on which I'd changed the link, so all the affected pages are as they were, with the links directly to General Hospital rather than piped. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The "topic" general hospital is 2 sentences in the article for hospital! Notability should play a part here, and I have to guess that someone entering General Hospital in the search bar is NOT looking for a type of hospital. Those that are will find a hatnote to direct them. Those looking for an article on a specific hospital will obviously enter the city name etc before "general hospital." This is common sense. Currently I believe you have a large percentage of people finding the article they expect and a small amount having to continue on with further links; a move would simply reverse this, making the majority of searchers have to navigate further to disambiguations and three people happy where they landed.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 00:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; it is quite clear to me that the majority of people will be looking for the article about the American soap opera when they type in "General Hospital" (or some variation of that spelling) and I cannot be convinced otherwise. There are also obviously ways, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, to demonstrate what the primary topic is or appears to be. Also note this: As seen here and here, Amakuru went on a massive editing spree to change General Hospital links to General Hospital (U.S. TV series) links, the very target Amakuru supported above for the American soap opera General Hospital material. Flyer22 (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As per stated above. Plus, most "general hospitals" within a state are met with the town name or state name. The series is one of the primary topics, and therefore should stay where it is. And I think with Amakuru going around changing things, it's a bit pre-mature and a simple waste, especially since consensus has not been reached, and several soap editors have never been made aware of this conversation.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 01:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just on a point of accuracy, I should point out that it isn't just America that has general hospitals! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. General Hospital is most well-known as US soap.--Alrofficial (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Calvin Klien
I have noticed a new original cast member here. I cannot locate this cast member on List of General Hospital Characters. Can someone please tell me who this character and actor is? Thank-you! Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I have removed Calvin Klien from the original cast members section as this entry cannot be verified anywhere. If someone can verify that the Calvin Klien was apart of the original cast, then he may be put back into the original cast members section. Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)