Talk:Lulu Spencer

Concerns
I'm trying to start a discussion on what I feel are improper usage of the biased, and incorrect, leanings of page editors. Specifically, Lulu's abortion keeps being categorized as the death of a child, making Lulu the mother of a dead baby. This is incorrect -- when women have miscarriages, they are not issued a death certificate. The law does not consider what they lose when they have miscarriages as dead children. When a woman has a miscarriage, she does not call the coroner to investigate the remains and determine a "cause of death".

Any argument of making the standards different for abortion would reveal a biased anti-abortion argument -- not appropriate for a neutral body like Wikipedia. Comolaflores 08:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC

Whoa, people have really gone over onto the deep end. Not only characterizing a terminated pregnancy as a dead child (according to that logic, my friend who had a six-week miscarriage is the mother of a deceased baby, too) but you've actually invented a name for the embryo? This is not only totally inappropriate for Wikipedia, but frankly more than a little creepy. 19:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC) (Comolaflores)

Plot summary
I can see that a lot of good work is being done on this article, thanks. :) I recommend that for further improvement, that the plot summary section be whittled down to about 500 words. For Manual of Style guidelines, please see WP:WAF.  Another good resource is WikiProject Soap Operas :) --Elonka 00:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

POV and Bias
The entire article seems to be littered with bias and pov comments for the entire portion of Lulu/Logan and Johnny/Lulu exerpts in the article. Can someone trim it up. It just seems completely biased in favor of Logan. Can we clean it up and make it more neutral? Skinwalker03 20:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
Right now this article has little more than plot summary. Can we provide some more "real world" context? For example, which actresses have played the part? Were they nominated for any awards? Were the plot lines ever covered in "non-soap" sources? Etc. --Elonka 23:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rearranging
The section on Logan's murder/mental instability seems out of place, especially since the rest of the development section revolves around her interpersonal relationships. The murder/mental section is also primarily storyline - I'd like to put it into the storyline section, which would also strengthen that section with its quotes/real world context. Any objections? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

i feel that the storyline sections should be strictly plot. Maybe we could put the murder/mental section before the romantic relationships, but that would also be a bit out of place.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think whenever it's possible to add real-world context to the storyline plot it strengthens the article, especially when having it reviewed at GAN. Also since this section is mostly plot, it seems off to have it go before the storyline starts. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The section is full of plot, so maybe we could take the plot out of the murder/mental section, and add it to the storyline section, which doesn't go that much into detail on this storyline. But the reason we have the "development' section, is so we can add quotes, and interviews, and real-world context, so that portion should stay where it is.Caringtype1 (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's see what others say. I still disagree and think the few quotes and real-world context in that section would strengthen the plot section, which needs more real world context. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah we should we see what other people think. On Todd Manning's article, which is a good article, the storyline section is purely plot, and doesn't even have any references, so...Caringtype1 (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing I just thought of that might help - if it stays, I think if it's titled just "mental instability" that would make it less confusing, and more clearly about the character's development than the specific storyline. But I do think the content would work nicely in the storyline section as the content mostly pertains to that. I see the point of calling out major character development before the story, but sometimes I feel it is confusing when it delves too much into the storyline in the development section and then goes back and starts the storyline over from start to finish in the plot section. What's confusing me with Lulu's article is the development section talks mostly about her relationships, and goes into great detail about Logan, Johnny and then Dante. The Dante section ends with a comment on their marriage and then the next section on murder/mental instability starts off with a comment about the love triangle, which seems an unexplained jump backwards in time. (I understand it's a new section but it's still the flow of how it's read) I'm not sure that if I didn't know the story myself I would understand the timeline there. I think the section should be rewritten to clearly focus on her mental breakdown, or just moved around to a different order in the article. Some/all could go into the storyline, or even split between the Logan and Johnny sections of development and tie them together. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah the "mental Instability" section should cover the character as a whole, not just that one story. As for the chronology, one thing we could do is put the storyline section first, so the reader knows what happened first. Other than that, noting what year things happened in each section is the best thing we can do.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Is She pregnant in real life, been sporting a baby bump with loose clothing.

Pat Kershaw General Hospital Watcher Since late 80's early 90's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:833D:8790:2D05:19D9:5B77:2456 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)