Talk:Todd Manning/Archive 2

Possible article improvement
 Resolved comments This article has been in my sights for a while now, ever since Howarth brought Todd to General Hospital. I was so impressed with his performance and with the character, I followed him to the much-lamented online version of OLTL, even though I had never watched it in its previous incarnations on ABC. I would like to take this on now, even though it's with much trepidation, since I understand the protectiveness many soap fans have about their characters. Despite that, I think that this is an important article to improve, since American soap opera articles are terribly neglected here. I'm willing to be collaborative as long as it doesn't turn ugly. To that end, I have some ideas that I'd like to record here, in case someone wants to have a discussion.

One of the major things I'd like to do is get rid of the "Storylines" section. Out of the 4 soap articles listed, 2 are about characters, and while they have such sections, they're very limited. (Wouldn't it be cool if this was the first character FA from an American soap?) They discuss storylines in the context of other discussions, such as character development. The current version of this article, with a Storylines section, is repetitious and gets into WP:FANCRUFT. If we need to, we can fold some of the content into other sections that discuss Todd's development as a character and his impact. At the very least, I think we need to cut much of this section. I can also see some cutting of some content that may not be important, but I'd need to look at the article more closely. Please discuss and please, no attacks! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, Figureskatingfan. I've never been a fan of the Storylines section; it was added in May 2012, so it's only been there for two years. As this article's archives show, I didn't feel that a Storyline section was needed for this article because the major storyline points are already addressed in the relevant sections of the article, such as in the Character creation section. I was planning on creating a Storyline section because a few editors and readers wanted one, asking why this is the only (big) soap opera article without one, and I felt that I could use the section to address some interesting parts that other aspects of the article do not address. But I made it clear that a Storyline section for this article would be similar to the one in the WP:Featured article Pauline Fowler, where it's not simply a retelling of the story, but rather, per Manual of Style/Writing about fiction (before the recent changes to this guideline), an inclusion of character analysis and/or critical commentary...like the article already does for some parts. But as you can see from that first diff-link I provided above, a Storyline section was added by an IP; I think that IP was Nk3play2, who edited that section soon after that IP did and would add a lot of stuff to soap opera articles as an IP instead of signing in. When I saw that Storyline section, I stated, "Moved Storylines section up. Wrong place to put it. And if it's gets out of hand, I will be removing it, per WP:PLOT." I later stated, "I don't watch Todd regularly anymore, and was never a regular viewer of General Hospital, so others will need to take care of this Storyline section, adding to it and keeping it under control." I initially had help keeping the Plot section down, as seen here and here. And the One Life to Live section is still in decent shape, while the General Hospital section is out of hand.


 * Anyway, I would be fine with the entire Storyline section being removed, but I know that a few Wikipedia editors, mainly the ones that are more WP:Fancruft in nature, would object to the removal. Still, I suggest that you go ahead and be WP:Bold and remove it. As for the rest of the article, I'd rather that no major restructuring takes place; I think that the current structure, I mean the subheadings and content in those sections (minus the Storyline section) is best; however, the article could definitely use some WP:Copyediting and reference cleanup. I know how difficult the WP:Featured article process is, so I am never looking forward to that process. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * On a side note: I did notice yesterday that you created space for the article for drafting. That definitely makes it easier to see what you have in mind for the article and to work on it with you. Flyer22 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Flyer, I went ahead and moved the draft version, because after looking at this article a little more closely, I think it's a better and more accessible place to discuss the article. Instead of talking about possible improvements here, I suggest that we take it over there, on its talk page.  It looks like this article has the potential of some collaboration, which can be fun and different for me, since I tend to work on articles alone.  I intend on spending some time this afternoon looking at the prose and sources some more, and recording my thoughts and ideas over there.  I suspect that there will need to be some discussion about a lot of aspects of the article, so I suggest that anyone who's interested in improving this article join me in the discussion and collaboration over there.  Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Christine (Figureskatingfan), I often work alone as well, though I also collaborate; it's difficult to never collaborate at Wikipedia, especially since collaborating to build a free encyclopedia is what this site is about. As should be clear from the current state of this article and its history, I know a lot about this character and care a lot about this article...so I am definitely interested in possible improvements for it. I watched this character since his debut, when I was age 10, collected a lot of material on him over the years, and therefore know everything about him, except for everything about his storylines on General Hospital and on the online version of One Life to Live (that's where your knowledge of the character definitely comes into play), so I am a good source for almost anything you need to know about him. With regard to American soap opera articles here at Wikipedia, they are not as neglected as you may think; I assume you mean neglected in quality, especially when it comes to WP:Good article status and WP:Featured article status. While the Todd Manning article was one of the first two American soap opera character articles to reach WP:Good article status (the other was the Dimitri Marick article), and was one of the several soap opera character articles on Wikipedia overall to reach that level, there have been several American soap opera character articles (all concerning The Young and the Restless) elevated to the WP:Good article status level since then (and of course a lot more non-American soap opera articles in that regard), as partly documented at SOAPS. I will see you at the draft page. Flyer22 (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And, actually, Christine (Figureskatingfan), now that I think more about not having the discussion at this talk page, I don't think it's a better idea to have it at your Todd sandbox...since if your Todd sandbox is ever deleted instead of simply blanked, all the text documenting what went into editing the article for WP:Featured article status will only be accessible to WP:Administrators. But it's your sandbox, so... Flyer22 (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Flyer, I think you're right about where discussion should be centralized; like I said, although I enjoy collaboration, I don't get many opportunities to do it here. I will move stuff from there over here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Initial thoughts by Figureskatingfan
 Resolved comments

So far, the discussion regarding the improvement of this article has been between myself (User:Figureskatingfan) and User:Flyer22. Anyone else is welcome, of course. I think that this should be strictly collaborative, since so many potentially has a stake in this article. I also think that we should discuss any changes here, except for minor prose and copyedits, before placing them in main article space.

I'll start things off by making a list of my initial thoughts and ideas. Please discuss and share!
 * Notice that when I copied the article here, I left out the "Storylines" section, as per the above discussion. I also left out the lead because I suspect it will be much different when we're done, and that we'll have to re-write it.
 * At the current time, there are two FAs about soap characters: Pauline Fowler and Poppy Meadow. I think that these should be our guides, and that we should look to them for what we should and should not include here.
 * As per previous discussion, I agree that we should keep the other sections intact, at least in their subject material and if there are enough reliable sources supporting them. (More about that later.)
 * I think that we should go through each section and decide what should stay and what should go before we conduct a copyedit, mostly to save time and effort.
 * References: This is honestly my biggest concern about this article. I think that we should dedicate an entire section to discussing them.  (See below, please.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how the lead is going to look "much different"; what is currently in it (though the first paragraph is currently too stuffed and that should be remedied) is a good summary of the topic/article. If we are going to "keep the other sections intact," which I think we should (except for needed copyediting and reference fixes/cleanup), the lead shouldn't be much different. Even if the article were drastically redesigned (which I also don't feel should be done), we should begin the lead by noting who the character is and that character's personality, then note the storyline aspects, especially the significant ones, and complete the lead with why the character is notable. Flyer22 (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that we table discussion about the lead for now. I tend to work on leads last, since leads are supposed to be a summary of the article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I also worry about the lead last, for the same reason.


 * On a side note: With regard to splitting up my "14:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)" comment, I prefer that such splits are not done. But if you feel that you have to in order to make the discussion flow easier, it is best that you duplicate my signature so that those reading the discussion know who is commenting; I've duplicated the signature above. Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * About the Pauline Fowler and Poppy Meadow articles being our guides for this article, hmm... I can't see that unless it concerns having a Storylines section that is blended with critical commentary, like the Pauline Fowler article is (and I've mentioned the sourcing aspect below). But the Todd Manning article, like I noted in our aforementioned recent discussion, already blends storyline detail with critical commentary. Anyway, what I mean by not seeing the Pauline Fowler and Poppy Meadow articles as our guides in this case is that while all of these characters are soap opera characters, Todd Manning is a completely different type of character, one whose background aspects are contrasted by matters such as a heavy emphasis on him being a monster or a monster looking for redemption, his scar and hair, his own theme music; in fact, and I noted this at the Todd Manning talk page before, the design for the Todd Manning article is based on the WP:Featured article Jason Voorhees; Todd is more similar to that character -- having a horror aspect, makeup and theme music aspect. That's why that type of design, with extra subheadings of course, has worked well for this article. Something else I have done is generally have the sections in chronological order (meaning that the first section starts from Todd's beginning and the other sections follow his life from that point), though there are obviously some aspects that can't help but be out of chronological order. For documentation on this talk page, this is what the article looked like when it passed as a WP:Good article in 2010; somewhat different, somewhat the same as it is now. Flyer22 (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * When I first came upon this article after Howarth joined the GH cast, I was impressed by the level of criticism here, and felt inspired to help bring it further along. It really helped me get to know Todd.  BTW, thanks for your patience and for bringing me up to speed by filling in some history, especially the horror aspect of this character and why we should add the Jason article to the top of the list of article models. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Glad that this article has helped you. At various soap opera sites, without the members knowing that I'm the one who edited/molded the vast majority of this article, I've often seen people state that the article helped educate them on the Todd Manning character and that it is the most comprehensive Todd Manning article they have read. Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Even though I used WP:Echo to ping a few editors in the Sources section below, I'll note at the WP:SOAPS talk page that this Todd sandbox discussion is going on; it might attract more soap opera editors, whether the ones I pinged below weigh in or not. Flyer22 (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I updated the talk page move over there. The more the merrier! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with not splitting up discussion, whatever you prefer. As per above, one of the reasons I want to help improve this article is that it can truly be a model of what this kind of article can be.  Plus, Todd is intriguing and so different from the typical soap character.  (As much as I'm enjoying Howarth as Franco on GH, part of me wants Todd back, but I digress.) ;) All my rhetoric about this article being more "academic" is really my enthusiasm and wish to see this article become truly great, something I have great confidence we can make happen. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that what makes a great article by Wikipedia standards is different than what the general public thinks of as a great article. For example, I think that this article is a great and encyclopedic Todd Manning article. But is it currently great by Wikipedia standards? No. I know that, which again is one reason that I did not pursue WP:Featured article status for this article. So I understand what you mean, though I think that you, like me, are also going by what you personally consider a great article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Images
 Resolved comments

Figureskatingfan, when noticing that the "Roger Howarth—The Other Side of Evil" reference is missing from the Todd sandbox (and that only its refname is there), I noticed that the images are not in the sandbox; I noticed because that source was applied to an image caption. Did you remove the images to make the sandbox editing easier, are you considering on removing one or more images, or were you thinking that the changes to the article might call for the images to be placed in different spots? If "yes" to removing the images or different placement for them, I can't state that I agree that any of the images should be removed or that they are better placed at different spots in the article. If you look at the image placements, they are carefully placed in the most relevant parts, and I think they add to readers' understanding of those topics. That stated, the St. John image with the caption commenting on how he was initially required to keep his hair shoulder length to resemble Todd could be argued as redundant to the infobox image of St. John. I would state that the infobox image of St. John is not needed, but since he portrayed Todd for several years, it is probably best to keep that image up there so that readers immediately see what St. John/the other Todd looks like. Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I've been meaning to change the Todd (St. John) execution image; this is because that small image barely shows anything -- his expression can barely be made out and there is barely any indication of what is happening to him, which certainly does not show the horror of "Todd" being put to death. We should have a better image of that execution, which is well discussed in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I cut the images when I created the draft space because admins don't like images in user space. We can discuss what images are appropriate as you've started to do below. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This article has too many non-free images. It needs to be cut down to the two infobox images. Rain  the 1  15:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Raintheone, I disagree. If it had too many, it would not have passed the WP:Good article process; and that was passed by one of the strictest reviewers Wikipedia has had. The non-infobox images, which are only three  four five, are used to aid critical commentary. Per Non-free content; the image passes "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)." and "Images with iconic status or historical importance: Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance." Todd's scar is not illustrated anywhere else in the article and is an iconic aspect of the character, with substantial critical commentary in the article about it (not just in the Signature scar and hair section, but in the Reception and impact section as well). And the image of Todd's parrot aids in seeing what that parrot, which was a big part of Todd's life and has substantial critical commentary about it in the article as well, looks like. Like I stated above, however, the "shoulder length [hair] to resemble Todd" image could be argued as redundant; so I can see that one being validly removed. Flyer22 (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It was listed at GAR years ago. The critrea has tightened since then. To be fair Todd's parrot look like any other pet parrot. Iconic images... Flyer we both know there are non in this article. Rain  the 1  15:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The criteria I cited above applies to today's WP:Good article and WP:Featured article standards. And I did not state that there are any iconic images in this article. I stated that there is an icon topic -- Todd's scar. And that the topic is iconic is well supported by the sources in this article discussing that topic. And even if were one to state that it's not an iconic topic, it is a very significant/symbolic aspect of Todd Manning that should be visually demonstrated in this article (in other words, it has historical importance); you arguing against that is surprising, even if you are not too familiar with this character and the importance of that scar. And parrots look different; either way, the inclusion of that parrot image passes the image criteria above. Flyer22 (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I am also open to not having any execution image. So there are only two non-infobox images that I think should stay. Flyer22 (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Images are a big issue here, and potentially contentious. I know from working on other articles about TV shows that it can be difficult to find free and appropriate ones.  Can we table this discussion for the time being, until we're further along in the improvement process? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that I overlooked another image again -- the "Salvation Army-like" clothing style image. Now I can see why Raintheone feels that there are too many non-free images in the Todd Manning article. There are five non-free, non-infobox images. I'm open to removing all of those except the scar and parrot images (just two). Sure, we can shelve this discussion for now, and I guessed that you would want to do that. But I don't at all see how it's debatable that the scar image should stay; and I'm speaking from experience on these type of images. It's no more discardable than the first non-free image in the Concept and creation section of the Jason Voorhees article, which is the section I based the Signature scar and hair section on (well, that section and the rest of the Character creation section in the Todd Manning article). I'd argue that the Todd scar image is actually more significant to this article than that Jason one is to the Jason Voorhees article. But, yes, I have no problem with focusing on other aspects of the article for now. Flyer22 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)