Talk:Phyllis Summers

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

Soap Operas

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

Fictional characters

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

Is a non-free image of Nelson really needed? And Stafford?[edit]

Another user noted that simply because it was there for years, there should be one there. But it was sort of clarified that the performer has to have been relevant in the role. Phyllis has been on the canvas on and off for 20 years, and Nelson played the role for 1 year. I don't think that calls for the need to have a visual representation of her in the role.

Also, about the image of Stafford. There is a perfectly fine free image of the actress which represents her (as Phyllis has obviously the same looks as her) well. I didn't see the need for there to be a non-free image of Stafford in the info-box (Like Heather Tom not being in the info-box for Victoria Newman for example). It's just more clutter. What do you think? — Ar re 05:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could go back to the promo image of Nelson that was there until last week. Whichever photo of her is there, makes no difference to me. I would definitely say she is notable, though. When a Phyllis recast was announced, message boards lit up with many people referencing her. She's definitely remembered and, with Tognoni's debut only having just happened, comparisons between the three will surely be made. I think it's too early to start talking about notability. Also, newer viewers will most likely come looking to see the three (at least for the next while).Cebr1979 (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's been agreed that we should avoid using promotional images taken in photo-shoots like that. Message boards? I don't see how that makes Nelson relevant in the role in the big picture. And apparent comparisons that you're predicting isn't enough reason to have an image of her either. And I see that again, you've re-added the non-free image of Stafford in favor of a free image. Even if you were insistent on that, you did not have to remove the free image. That's just random. Anyway, as it is, with the images of both Stafford (Even though we have a free image of her) and Nelson, and when one is added of Tognoni as Phyllis, the info-box just looks way too long. Also.... "Nah... You don't own this page or wikipedia and I've given you multiple reasons on your own talk page that validate why these images should stay. If you want to create a big change, you need to go to the talk page." - seriously? It's just re: images, no need to be so snarky.— Ar re 06:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, matters not to me which photo is used. I just put the one that was already in the infobox back and removed the un-needed one from the casting section. Snarky? No. Tired and pointing things out to you. "I don't think she really needs an image in the infobox" and then just changing the page without asking for a consensus on what you thought? Owning. Anyways, did we not already have a discussion on your talk page (like... only minutes ago)? Do you really need another one here too? We've both made our comments about the photo here and other stuff there. You need it all discussed in both spots? Why not just put a link to your talk page and save some space?Cebr1979 (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter to me, when we can avoid using non-free images in favor of free images. That would be a wiser thing to do. You know, not everything small thing needs consensus. If everyone needed consensus on every little thing nobody would bother editing in the first place. You're acting like I moved a thousand pages without gaining consensus, implying that I am showing signs of ownership. It's uncalled for. What are you talking about? You've used "other pages", "the message boards say so" etc, so obviously I disagree. I don't see how we are re-hashing anything here.— Ar re 07:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not having a personal conversation with you on an article's talk page. Just go back here if you need to keep going.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I don't get why you keep removing the free image of Stafford. Firstly, it's free use, and it's of the actress who played Phyllis. I don't see at all how it's unneeded. If anything, the non-free image is unneeded, as we have a free equivalent. You're just adding clutter to the infobox IMO. You've overlooked the GA-quality example I gave you.— Ar re 07:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a photo of her in the infobox and it is a screenshot (which you originally stated are more accurate so it's confusing why you now think otherwise). And we've already discussed this on your talk page which I've provided a link to. That should make it easy to find.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Arre, we should be using free images in favor of non-free ones. It's easier to negotiate free ones. I think there should definitely be a photo of Stafford, but Nelson, I don't think she should be in the infobox anymore. Makes it cluttered. Plus, "message boards" aren't a reason to state that Nelson's photo should remain. Creativity97 17:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Gina Tognoni (April 2019).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a moderator here is a huge fan of Gina Tognoni and isn't happy that Michelle Stafford is back. They have the years written to look like Michelle's recent return is going to be short lived and that she will be leaving again. When I tried to correct it by putting a hyphen in front of 2019 to denote 2019 to Present (2019-), the mod undid my edit and reverted it to 2019. I'm pretty damn sure Michelle will still be playing Phyllis in 2020 as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:6C42:4400:4D4C:E8A4:FC69:514A (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]