Talk:Starr Manning

Issues with this topic
Other than the fact that she is the daughter of Todd Manning and Blair, notability of Starr Manning is not yet established in this article. There is no evidence of impact by this character; the plot summary is too long and takes over the whole article, which violates WP:PLOT; even the "Plot" itself is possibly the original research. The WikiProject Soap Opera guidelines fail to consider the WP:GNG for this topic and the third-party and independent sources. I was this close to tagging it with either prod-nn or afd. --George Ho (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Soap Operas ‎does care about the notability of soap opera characters, as I stated here and elaborated on here. This article can be significantly fixed up with notability, especially regarding notability within the soap opera community. I just never got around to significantly fixing it up. Try to remember that notability is not based on the state of an article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ...Well, you do care, don't you? Still, I'm torn between removing or remaining unsourced Plot; even storyline sections in that talk page is left with no consensus to me. I can't tell which is relevant to this topic or not besides her parentage. I don't sense any other signifance of this character in reliable sources, even with the revisit of her father's past. --George Ho (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's left with consensus because most of the editors in that discussion I pointed you to agreed that no sources are directly needed in the plot sections of such articles, except for in rare instances. If you did not grasp why that is from reading the discussion (reading, not skimming through it), then I don't know what else to tell you and I am not about to debate this with you. It was already debated, and most agreed "no sources needed for plot sections." This is standard practice all over Wikipedia, for articles about plays, films and prime time shows. With the exception of four, there are no sources for the Plot section in the Avatar (2009 film) article, for example, because the film serves as the source. Not to mention, that most of what is there is sourced in other ways throughout the article. The only thing you need to be worried about with regard to plot information is if the plot is copyrighted or is too much, as you have been worried about before. Still, plot sections for soap opera character articles are going to be longer because new soap opera episodes debut every day, with few exceptions (usually holidays), and therefore will consist of more plot information than films or prime time shows.


 * As for the significance of this character, no, you would not know...since you are not familiar with this character or her impact on television. But I do know. And if you were to nominate this article for deletion, even after you have been warned in the past about that action being your first instinct, all that will end up happening is my discussing this with your mentors and then, if it's deleted, my recreating this article in a significantly fixed up form. Flyer22 (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh... I read the summary of the debate... I guess, six votes in favor of no necessity to add citations for plots, while one vote in favor of requiring them. However, I will favor Bignole's argument about WikiProject Soap Opera's lack of ability to supersede Featured Article meets and needs to cite sources, but numbers were decided for the Project. True, every day soap episodes are published; still, to me this topic's issues are rare cases considered. In rare cases, the show will end next month, and this article looks bad now. I will accept that storylines of living characters of active shows (inactive or not) do not need sources, but storylines of deceased characters of any show or living characters of cancelled shows should be cited to me.


 * Regarding this topic, I know one significant storyline: her romance with the raped victim's son. But I don't know if it is significantly covered or not. --George Ho (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't this character portray teen pregnancy - a big issue? Rain the One  BAM 00:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What, they did? Even so, hasn't it been done already in the 2000s, namely Law & Order: SVU and George Lopez (TV series) (not actually happened, but it was addressed as a feared issue)? In this case, it may be very big to their own parents and their own past, but has any real-world media significantly covered this storyline? --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess you could look, I didn't, I just pulled something out that is usually notable... it gained coverage as the first few results from a google search proves - Could this be another notable article in your sights? Rain the One  BAM 00:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll be damned! Still, I can't tell which I must go first: either condescence the background or include the "teen pregnancy" impact. --George Ho (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I respect Bignole a lot, and I have worked with him. It's his preference to add sources for plot sections. He doesn't do so all the time, however, such as with film articles, but he usually does. And plot sections are usually never sourced for film articles, even for FAs, probably because films usually reach a larger number of people, are usually easier to assess for viewing, and any inaccuracies of film plot sections are not likely to stay there for long. I'm not sure why you feel that sourcing storyline sections of deceased characters or living characters of cancelled shows are more important or should be required, but they are not.


 * I've already told you that I can provide notability for Starr Manning and significantly fix up her article. I don't know what to tell you other than that. You either trust me or you don't. But I'm the one who knows this character's history extensively and how she has been discussed in sources since her debut. There are reliable sources on and offline about this character, her impact on her father (Todd Manning), and her own individuality. And I don't just mean soap opera magazine/site sources. Thanks to Raintheone for going ahead and finding some online material that I won't have to look for. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ...I'll trust you all to improve this article. Hmm... Avatar (2009 film) is a GA, not a FA. Currently, I don't know if sources are necessary anymore for plots, but I know it is necessary to meet FA requirements. Nevertheless, I will accept the consensus for now. Would a plot sourced by a published primary material without citations, such as a film or TV, be an original research or not?


 * I have tried to add "copyright status" in Storm in a Teacup (film), even with primary sources, such as copyright.gov and archive.org, but the section was removed because it was deemed an OR and lacked secondary sources about copyright status of this film. Would plot apply as "original research"? --George Ho (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure when I'll significantly fix up this article, but I plan to do so before I retire from Wikipedia (which may or may not be next year; I'm thinking of staying for a few more years, but may actually stay only one more year). Someone else could fix it before me, you never know. Yes, I got the Avatar (2009 film) article to GA status (with the help of others). It's not FA yet, but the same thing applies to the plot sections of FA film articles. See Changeling (film) for an example. Maybe that's not the case for FAs regarding television articles. But the plot sections of film articles are hardly ever sourced, no matter their status. Plot is not original research, unless it's made-up plot, so I'm not sure what you mean by the question "Would a plot sourced by a published primary material without citations, such as a film or TV, be an original research or not?" I thought we just went over that. How is your question about a different topic? Primary sources are citations, so exactly what do you mean, the plot as the primary source? Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah... Changeling (film) is an FA. Hmm... I guess: citing plots is not necessary nowadays, huh? Is there no policy or guideline about it? How about an essay? Cheers and Dog Day Afternoon were Featured Articles but demoted. As for the different topic, I was comparing that to the other, but let's forget that. So plot is not an original research; any published subject, film, episode, or anything else, is a primary source itself and reliable for plot, right? I don't know anymore. I am becoming confused. --George Ho (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to make of those other articles being demoted, but it couldn't have been because their plots were unsourced. I'd have to look into it. Plot sections generally do not need to be sourced because the play, film or show serves as the source. Yes, they are primary sources and are therefore reliable for plot sections. One of your mentors agreed and stated pretty much the same thing. The only time that this information is unreliable is if it has to do with what was revealed by a writer, director or actor or when an editor adds in fake-plot. For something that was revealed by a writer, director or actor, it either shouldn't be in the plot section because it didn't happen in the story or it needs to be cited. There isn't much we can do about editors adding in fake-plot, except for correcting the fake-plot and giving those editors a warning or blocking them if we know who they are. No, there is no policy or guideline about sourcing plots, other than what is stated in Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Now I begin to accept that real plots needs no citations as long as primary sources exist. Now we can move on to this topic. "Teen pregnancy" or "Impact" section can be created, but do I have to add it if the section is needed? --George Ho (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The sections shouldn't be added until they are written. If you just want to add a line or two, that's fine. We shouldn't have empty sections. But, yes, those headings will be needed. Flyer22 (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What if I add one or two lines of this impact in the lead? --George Ho (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine of course, per WP:LEAD, especially since it will eventually be covered in the lower body of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ one sentence with two citations. --George Ho (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

One section says "Hannah claims that she saw push Marty down a flight of stairs". She saw WHO push Marty down a flight of stairs? Alanasings (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
I thought the consensus at wp:soaps was to not switch completely to box2, but to update box1? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was the consensus. So why do editors keep changing it to box 2?Caringtype1 (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I am also seeing it on the Y&R and Days pages, that it's box 2. Jester66 (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

But that wasn't the consensus.Caringtype1 (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. the consensus was to update box1, I guess those editors haven't got the memo yet. Jester66 (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Yes, it was, you just said so.Caringtype1 (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Bravo for significantly fixing up this article
Bravo to Nk3play2 (who I will be awarding a WP:Barnstar) for significantly revamping this article and being most responsible for its current good state. In my view, it's ready to be assessed for WP:GA status. Flyer22 (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)