Talk:Todd Manning/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Background section

Resolved comments

• Do we have any more information about the Branco TV Guide source (ref 1 on the draft)? If there's a scan available, it'd be great to put eyes on it.
• Hayward ref: Currently, this ref isn't specific enough. It needs to be broken up into specific pages, and then the book needs to be placed in a "Works cited" section. (I have the book ordered from Amazon, so I can work on this when it arrives.)
• I don't really care for the Malone Q&A/Tripod website, since it's basically a fan site, but I'm going on the record that I'm fine with keeping it for comprehensiveness sake. I'll look for other sources that support the content. I wonder if instead of putting the note before the citation, that we place it in parenthesis after the "at" parameter, like this: " "Malone on Daytime TV, One Life to Live, and Another World" (exclusive interview by Malone to Magnificently Malone website)".
• Speaking of, I like the long Malone quote, since it's more eloquent than any paraphrase would ever be, but I'm not sure reviewers will. I'm okay with keeping it, but wanted to ask what others felt about perhaps putting it in a quotebox?
• Malone originally scripted Todd as a serial rapist. During the 1993 rape storyline, it is "Todd canon" he raped character Carol Swift a year or two before raping Marty, and there are hints in the series he raped other young women before Carol. I was able to find this interview, on a RH fansite, but it would be nice if we could get the complete citation. I also reworded these two sentences; let me know if it's okay. I also would like to have more information about the ref, although I did find it on the RH website. I also found this clip [1]; what do you think about including it in a note?
• Is there any more info about ref5?
• I think we should remove the ref6 note, unless it's actually supported by the 23 October 2008 episode. Actually, I was able to find the clip [2], and perused it, but wasn't able to find any dialogue to support the statement that Todd was 20 years old. (Who is the blonde sitting in the bed with him?) If we can't find anything, we may need to remove the phrase; it's not all that important, anyway.
• The following statement, about the SORASing of Todd's children, should really be supported as well, unless we decide that it's a non-contentious and self-obvious claim. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The "Sexy Beast" Nelson Branco TV Guide source you are referring to used to be an online source; this is the URL that used to exist for it. I can't find it anywhere on Internet Archive, and Internet Archive says it's on the web, but not from what I see...so it must be referring to the altered URL that does not go to the Sexy Beast article.

The Jennifer Hayward reference: While I'm not a fan of duplicating a source just to cite specific page numbers, I understand the validity in doing that and that it is often done for WP:Featured articles, so I don't mind you doing it for this article.

As seen here and here, I don't care for using Tripod as a source either, but, like I stated in the Sources section above, those are exclusive interviews; it can't be helped that Malone did those interviews with that site. Those interviews can't be cited without us using that source unless a WP:Reliable site has reproduced one or more portions of the interviews. Having looked at the general portion of the magnifmalonian site before, it doesn't seem that it was always located at Tripod. As for stressing in the reference that those interviews are exclusive interviews, I don't care how it's done...as long as it's viewable when a person hovers over and/or clicks on the number portion of the reference. Also, we currently have a duplicate version of that source in the article. Unless we are pointing to different sections of that source, the fact that there is a duplicate needs to be remedied.

I obviously like the long Malone quote as well. I argued to keep it before in a WP:Good article review for this article and I would in a WP:Featured article review for this article. Because of its length, I don't think it would look as good in a quotebox. And it would not flow as well after the "Malone felt he could not take full credit for the development of the character from Marty Saybrooke's gang rapist to what the character later became, and also noted Howarth's impact:" line unless we were to simply have a "Malone on Howarth's impact" piece as part of who the quote is from. Or removed the line as redundant.

The "Malone originally scripted Todd as a serial rapist" bit: I'm not sure what you mean by "complete citation"; that citation is complete; it has the author name, title of the article, exact date and publication. As for using The RH Factor URL for it, I'm not keen on using URL links from fansites and especially not in the case where the fan re-typed the article instead of showcasing a scan of it; this is because in the case of the former, an editor can state that the retype is unreliable (no matter that retyping happens anyway when a Wikipedia editor relays what a print source states, without the copy-and-paste option), and, in the case of the latter, they can argue that it is a WP:Copyright violation. I've only come across the WP:Copyright violation aspect when the article is being hosted on a site like Photobucket or TinyPic; for example, as seen here and here at the Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery article. One example of there being a discrepancy between what a magazine states and what a person types up from that magazine is found when comparing this online Soap Opera Digest piece to this The RH Factor retype (the same URL link you added to the Todd sandbox). The Soap Opera Digest source states, "People have come up to me and said, 'My 7-year-old loves you.' What do I say to that? I'm not going to tell them, 'Don't let your 7-year-old watch TV.' But I have to say, it's disturbing." And the The RH Factor retype states, "People have come up to me and said, 'My 7-year-old loves you.' What do I say to that? 'Don't let your 7-year-old watch TV.' But I have to say, it's disturbing." It's a slight discrepancy, there near the end, and it makes one wonder which version is more accurate (whether the online magazine version is slightly wrong or whether the fan who did the retype is), but I'm sure that the vast majority of people would be willing to bet on the online magazine version being more accurate. As for using YouTube as a source; as you likely know, that generally is not allowed, except for cases where it's the official YouTube channel with regard to the material or is being used, for example, to source information about an Internet celebrity, such as Chris Crocker or Jenna Marbles; WP:USERGENERATED and WP:YOUTUBE address YouTube sourcing. YouTube is commonly accepted as an addition to the External links section, though, per WP:External links. I'm not sure about it being cited in a note, but I caution against doing that. Thanks for that YouTube link, by the way; I don't remember that scene, and it's always fun for me to watch vintage Todd storylines.

The "'Special Section: Where would soaps be without the bad boys and vixens that cause turmoil?'. Soap Opera Digest. 31 July 2001. p. 38." reference: What more are you looking for with regard to it? It's a complete citation; I don't think an author was attached to that piece. If you look inside of American some soap opera magazines, you will see that some pages have commentary, such as in a box, without it being attributed to a specific author (for example, this might be a case of that, unless those are the authors there placed vertically in small print along the left side); this aspect goes back to my "19:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)" comment in the Sources section above. There is not any other information in that source that is needed for the Wikipedia Todd Manning article. It's basically a brief recap of who Todd is and why fans love him. It's somewhere under the stacks of books in my room; I could refresh my memory on it this Wednesday when I'm finally back in my own home instead of in this apartment I'm currently in due to a house fire I had a few months back.

Yes, this reference is supported by the actual episode; that's why it describes that portion of the episode and is why I put it beside the "but is later stated to have been 20 at the time of Marty's rape" text. This is a case where we should either use Template:Cite episode or Template:Note. I think we should keep it because it shows one of the age retcons. Regarding the YouTube clip you noted, the age 20 factor is confirmed at 17:26/17:27; though "Todd" is speaking of his consensual encounter with her in that moment, he was the same age when he raped her (unless we are to believe he was one age going on another). And the blond woman in the clip is none other than Marty Saybrooke (during the "re-rape" storyline); you didn't recognize her, I assume.

The statement about the SORASing (rapid aging) of Todd's children (and therefore prematurely aging Todd) is a plot matter, supported by his children's Wikipedia articles, Starr Manning and Danielle Manning (especially the Danielle Manning article) and therefore, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Contextual presentation, the plot serves as the source. Starr is one of the few soap opera children who were allowed to naturally grow up onscreen, however; there was a bit of SORASing in the beginning, but it's difficult to state if it occurred after that, other than the timeline jump for the online version of One Life to Live.

On a side note: I see here and here, that you use British style for dates and delink the publications within the reference templates. I use American style and prefer that the publications are linked within the reference templates. Wikipedia bots or editors with script tools are always changing the date style to British style, however; so when I use American style in this article, it will be changed eventually. Do you mind linking the publications in references? I feel that only the publications that have Wikipedia articles should be linked, however, to avoid WP:Red link unless a red link is clearly appropriate. Flyer22 (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Responses first, and then I'll continue with going through this section. I can see this is going to be very long, which is probably necessary. I suggest that as things are resolved, we use collapsible tables to make things more manageable.

I agree that we should keep the long Malone quote. If we were to put it in a quotebox, we'd have to re-word the paragraph, but I agree that it looks better as is.

Re: complete citations: I'm just asking for confirmation that they're complete because I want to be thorough. I understand that not all articles will have an author attached to it. Ref1, for example, doesn't have page numbers; if you have them, please add them to the ref. If you don't have access to them, we'll just see what we can get away with, or try to find other sources that support it. When I ask for complete citations in the future, just confirm it one way or the other, please. (I'm very sorry about your house fire! Please, if that gets in the way of what I ask, tell me and we'll just include what we can.)

Re: fan sites. I'd much rather depend upon the actual source than an on-line version typed in by a fan. If a source isn't accessible on-line, that's often acceptable. If you have access to the source, I think it's better to use it and not a fan site like the RH Factor.

Using YouTube clips: I agree that we should use them very sparingly. In the Carol Swift case, I think that we should use it because it supports an important claim--that Todd was a serial rapist. I wouldn't use the episode from 2008, since it's just a throw-away line and not all that important. I think that we should go through possible clips to use as they come up. (Wow, why would you lay in bed with someone who raped you in the past, even if he does look significantly different? Don't bother explaining; I know it's a soap and that there's some storytelling reason for it. Remember, I've seen relatively very little of OLTL, so no, I'm not going to recognize all the characters. I also know that we're gonna go off in tangents from time to time, since that's what makes this fun!)

SORASing: I think that we don't need to support that statement, since it is obvious from Todd's bio. The British dating style seems to be the practice on most of Wikipedia, so I agree about keeping. Personally, I don't like to link things in reference sections, but if I do, I link the first time they appear in the section, or if it's linked in the article, I don't link it in the references. I promise to take care of this when we're further along. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, let's use collapsible tables and/or subsection headings (the generic "Section break" heading).

Okay, agreed on the Malone quote.

Thanks for explaining about the citations. Yes, like I stated, those are complete ones; we have to worry about the incomplete ones, of course. The Sexy Beast article (currently ref 1) didn't have page numbers when it was online. I think there was talk among soap opera fans about it being transferred to print, but I'm not sure. Some of what was seen in that source is in the Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines article, though. You want me to simply confirm one way or the other whether the citation is complete? Understood. I will if I think I'm sure on that matter. Thanks for the condolences about the fire; it was a grease fire and it mostly got my kitchen and a little piece of the roof of my living room. But there was smoke damage and extensive water damage.

Like you, I'd much rather depend upon the actual source than an online version typed up by a fan; that's why I did not use any of The RH Factor URL links to support the content in this article; I simply relied on the print version as it is, knowing that editors will either have to trust that I'm citing an actual source or not trust it...but that using sources without URLs is perfectly acceptable. I don't think that there are any official (as in from the publications) online versions of these magazine sources, except for the excerpts from Soap Opera Digest.

Using YouTube and the October 23, 2008 age 20 commentary: Hmm, with regard to the YouTube note you added, I'm still not convinced that we should cite it. And not to mention...once a YouTube link goes dead because the video was deleted, it can't be replaced by a trip to an Internet archive, such as Internet Archive. But then again, you are experienced with getting articles to WP:Featured article status and we both know that we can always sort such a matter out in the WP:Featured article review if it comes up there. With regard to the age 20 commentary, I'd still rather that we keep it, especially since it sometimes seems that Todd was in his early 20s when he raped Marty and fans sometimes wonder about it, but I'm not too opposed to you having removed it. As for why would Marty lay in bed with someone who raped her in the past, even if he does look significantly different, I know that you stated "[d]on't bother explaining," but the explanation is in the Todd Manning article and extensively in the Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines article; she had amnesia.

Linking: The reason that I prefer that the publications be linked in the references instead of not being linked in the references is so that access information about the publication (what type of publication it is, how reliable it is, etc.) is right there for the reader to explore along with, for example, the URL link to the source. Flyer22 (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

On a side note: There may be some days where it takes me more than a day to respond; if so, this will usually be because, though I may be active reverting vandalism or other unconstructive edits, I am often intermittently doing non-Wikipedia online work, and pulling together non-Wikipedia online work, and there are other Wikipedia articles I may devote myself to intermittently. Flyer22 (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You can see that I already have done some cleaning up; I'll continue as we go along. I also went ahead and cleaned up the "RH Factor" ref; if you can find the page number at some point, that would be great. Re: the YouTube clip: let's go ahead and see if we can get away with it. You know the old saying: It's easier to ask for forgiveness instead of for permission. Perhaps we can find a better source for the 20-year-old comment; I'll look for it. I'd still like to hold off on the source linking, if you don't mind.

Wow, I just had a look at the Rape Storylines article; hmm, another article with some potential. Now, don't you worry; I'm sure that I'll be so burned out after this one that I won't want to touch another OLTL article for a while. I too have my fingers in several things at once, including some pending articles at FAC and GAC. This week, I'm on Spring Break, so I have time to play with this article, and there may come a time when I get busy and have to take a break. I anticipate this taking months. And one more thing: amnesia, of course! I should've guessed! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. And source linking? You mean linking the publications? And, yes, that article has potential and needs cleanup and tweaks. After such work, it could definitely reach WP:Good article status. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yah, sorry, you're right about linking the publications. Hmm... (about the Rape article, although I have other goals to accomplish here first.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Going on and finishing off this section: I have some problems with the next two paragraphs. For example, I hope that ref 1 supports the first 2 sentences in the 1st paragraph, since refs 3 and refs 6 do not. Well ref 3 supports the assertion that Todd is Tina and Viki's brother, and ref 6 supports his birth date, but it reads like the "Manning" oversight and the writers making Todd a part of the Lord family are connected, which breaks WP:SYN. I think you're making a big leap from Todd becoming a Lord to it being how he transitioned to a major character, since it seemed that he already was one. All Malone says it that it gave them "huge story". I was going to complain that the last 2 sentences in the 1st paragraph are unsupported and should be, but then I see that it's supported by what's now ref 8 (the ABC.com ref). I'd like to see this re-written; I'm sure there are plenty of sources out there about Todd's family background. Let me do some research and see what I can come up with. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I was going to state that "Except for 'ref 1,' I'm not clear on how you are naming the references for those two paragraphs," but now I see that you were looking at your Todd sandbox and I was looking at the actual article. Yes, the "Shame and Prejudice: Mishandling sin on ‘OLTL’" reference supports the following sentences: "Malone gave the character the last name Manning without knowing Victor Lord's mistress was named Irene Manning. This oversight allowed the writers to later reveal Todd as Tina and Victoria Lord's brother." I was certain that the Malone Q & A source supports that line as well; in fact, I just rechecked it by skimming over it a few times earlier the previous hour to see that I'm not mistaken. And the reason I'm confused as to the Malone Q & A source not supporting that line is that I think I had that source supporting that line before I saw it confirmed by the Shame and Prejudice: Mishandling sin on ‘OLTL’ source and was happy to acquire a better source (by Wikipedia standards) to support it; I'll have to look into the edit history and see because I don't know what happened there, whether I mixed up a source or what (accidentally mixing up sources on Wikipedia has certainly happened to me before, a few times, but I still currently can't get over the Malone Q & A source not supporting that piece). And, no, the "Shame and Prejudice" source does not have page numbers; at least its online version did not, which used to be located at this URL; A Google search shows the places that this URL used to exist (likely not all of the places), but also that it no longer exists online.

I'm sure that I did not add the "born on January 2, 1970." part, which the edit history shows. I don't remember who added that piece (would have to check the edit history), but it's clear to me that the person who did also added this SoapCentral.com source to support the birth date part of the line.

I agree that using the Malone Q & A source to support the "while transitioning Todd from a recurring character to a main character" is WP:Synthesis and should be reworded. Also, the ABC.com source does not state "$27.8"; it states "nearly 30 million"; I got into a minor dispute with an editor about that piece (I can't remember who it was), and I disputed changing the text to $27.8...since the ABC.com source does not state that. The editor who added the $27.8 bit did so because apparently that is the exact amount clarified in the storyline. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: While I would categorize Todd as a major character before he was revealed as part of the Lord family, I don't currently remember when he became a main character; casting-wise, there is of course a difference between a main character and a recurring character. The words "main character," not "major character," are used in the aforementioned WP:Synthesis text, but it's still WP:Synthesis. Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. You've come across an issue I've also encountered in some of the articles I edit, although I admit much less frequently: fans insisting upon depending upon their memory and insisting on using it as a source. All soap viewers are experts, right? It's hard to explain to them, that no, here we depend upon more reliable and verifiable sources. At any rate, perhaps the solution is to avoid saying that the writers had to find a way to fold Todd into the regular cast--I think. I've looked at the sources available, and I'll try and see what I can do about re-wording it.

You probably already know this, but one of the trickiest things about soap sources is that so few of them are accessible. I'm certain that there has been all kinds of articles written about Todd (especially during the Rape storyline), but unlike many print sources, soap opera publications haven't bothered archiving past issues on-line, probably for economic reasons. It provides us with a unique challenge, although I suspect that what we have is adequate. Plus, it does make research much easier. Ah, the gender gap rears its head once again! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Not having the sources online makes researching soap operas/soap opera characters easier, you feel? Do you feel that way because there are less WP:Reliable online sources for us to look through? Flyer22 (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I mean. Since we're depending upon on-line, accessible sources, and there aren't much out there, we have less physical research to go through. If we were writing about a book or a more scholarly paper, we'd have to hunt down the scores of articles written about him, probably by personally appealing to the soap mags. But that's not what we're doing here, so we do what we can with the limitations at hand.

You already know about it, but I wanted to record it here: I made some tweaks to the Background section in my sandbox [3]. What do you think, should I bring it over to the draft space? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking of contacting Nelson Branco to see if he has an online version of the Sexy Beast and Shame and Prejudice: Mishandling sin on ‘OLTL’ articles stashed someone; I'm not sure why an intact URL version of these articles can't be found. And, yes, of course bring that draft over to the Todd sandbox; like I told you, good work. Flyer22 (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Going back to that latest change, though, I didn't notice before that you removed "The writers chose to begin the storyline with the mystery regarding the false heir, David Vickers, a con-man claiming Todd's fortune as his own, and to have him corrupt Tina." part. It's probably best to mention something about the false heir aspect at some part of the article, if not the Background section, since Vickers having Todd's spot for some time was a big deal. Flyer22 (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You'll see that I re-added the info, as per your request; hope it's satisfactory. Hey, putting eyes on either of those articles would be greatly helpful. If Branco could scan them, that would be great, even if he doesn't put them on-line. Actually, if you could get access to any of the off-line sources by asking fans who might own the magazines in which these articles appear, even better. I think that we can move onto the next section now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll contact Branco. As for contacting fans, I tried that (on March 17, 2014) with regard to the fans who created Todd's Secret Keep, but the email came back to me because their email address is dead. I might try elsewhere. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a great opportunity here. Todd is actually mentioned and there are interviews in many US newspapers etc. Available online. Having looked into it a lot - I have to say US soap operas are covered in many news sources online and off - and the fact there are many more news papers than anywhere else covering National, States and cities - there is a chance for all of the articles - not just Todd.Rain the 1 23:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Rain, I only have access to newspaper sources when I'm on campus, which won't happen until Monday 'cause we're on Spring Break. I'll work on this aspect of our research then. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: With this edit, it can be seen that I did not originally place the Malone Q & A source to support the "Malone gave the character the last name Manning" line; so I don't know how that source came to eventually support that line (I'd have to look more into the edit history to find out) or why I was sure that it supports that line. Flyer22 (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Signature scar and hair

Resolved comments

• I wonder if this section is misnamed. Sure, it's mostly about the scar and the hair, but there's also content about how Todd's appearance adds to his menacing nature. I wonder, then, if a better title would be "Appearance", which is more similar to other fictional character articles. By that same token, I wonder if this entire section--"Character creation"--is also misnamed, since the subsections are more than about just how Todd was created. I think a more apt title would "Character development". What do you think?
• If you have access to the Donahue clip...for confirmation about make-up time.
• I was able to find a user-generated source for the content from SOM [4], so I tried to better utilize it here.
• I've started some tweaks here (have one more paragraph to go, but I have to leave it here); please let me know what you think and if they should be any different. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I prefer to keep part of the heading focused on the scar because of its significance, and readers will surely be looking on information specifically about it; "scar" in the heading makes that easier to find. Though the section mentions other aspects of Todd's face, that attention mostly revolves around his hair. But I can do without "hair" in the heading. I was going to state that sections may deviate a bit from what their headings state; it's no big deal as long as the section is mostly about what the section heading presents itself as. I was also going to state that I'd rather keep the aforementioned section titled "Signature scar and hair" because I feel that other aspects of Todd's appearance are better left in the spots they are in, and the "Appearance" title will tempt editors to move detail from those spots to the "Appearance" section; for example, the Roger Howarth and Trevor St. John casting sections address Todd's appearance. But now that I think more about it, the piece about Todd's wardrobe (found in the Roger Howarth section) would fit well in an Appearance section. What St. John states about Todd's hair would also fit in the "Signature scar and hair" or "Appearance" section, but it also relates to his portrayal and somehow seems to fit better to me there. With regard to moving any of that material to the section in question, how about we title the section Scar and overall appearance? Critical commentary on Todd's appearance, such as people finding him physically attractive, should of course be left in the Reception and impact section.

The "Character creation" heading was modeled after the "Concept and creation" heading in the Jason Voorhees article; the Jason Voorhees section is not only about creation in the strictest sense either. To me, "development" is also "creation" when it comes to a fictional character; well, it's often about creation. But I know that the terms are sometimes distinguished in Wikipedia fictional character articles by their headings, and that sometimes the Development section is a subsection of the Creation section or vice versa. We don't need the word "character"; it's redundant. So how about we rename the section Creation and development?

With regard to you removing the Donahue source from the material about the time it takes to apply the scar, but leaving it to source the other Donahue material, I don't understand that. Well, I assume you don't want to address the Reception and impact section yet. But the Donahue matter is a television episode source, and we should cite it as a television episode source using the template designed for such material. Howarth indeed stated that about the scar makeup application. There is no YouTube or other online clip of that show appearance. The closest thing to it is this section from Todd's Secret Keep. But again, it's not a good idea that we use URLs from fansites if we want this article to pass as a WP:Featured article. Glad that you didn't use that oocities.org URL.

Your other tweaks to the section are good. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually looked at some individual Doctor Who articles, since each incarnation of that character's appearance is also important (especially his clothes). For example, the Tenth Doctor's clothes are probably the most important part of his appearance, and I suspect it's what readers look for, but since the article talks about more than that, it has the more generic "Appearance" subsection. The GA Jack Harkness, though, has a "Costume" subsection [5], but only because there's more information about it. We may find some additional information about Todd's appearance. Todd's hair, especially when it was long, along with the scar and his striking blue eyes, all work together to make him menacing. I agree that some content that's currently elsewhere might better belong here, and perhaps we can break up the section into each portrayer's appearance; I'll reserve judgment until I'm more familiar with later sections.

I like your solution to the "Character creation" section, and will go change it now.

Sorry, I removed the Donahue section 'cause I was having trouble with the template; will go fix now. Wow, I know that the fansite is unusable, but it sure was fun to see. It's unfortunate that the episode isn't on YouTube. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Howarth's eyes are hazel and Trevor St. John's eyes are blue, though Howarth's eyes can appear blue; Howarth's eyes sometimes looking blue or green, especially depending on the reflection of the light or color shirt he is wearing, is likely why Starr's animated daydreams during even Howarth's portrayal and the Todd rag doll portrayed Todd as having blue eyes; I touched on this Starr daydream/Todd rag doll aspect in the Sources section above. I'm not sure that it will be necessary to have a section on each of the portrayer's appearances, especially since St. John's appearance as Todd is how the 2000s/2010s Todd would dress, but we'll see. Flyer22 (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't responded to your idea about re-naming this sub-section, because I wanted to look at later mentions of Todd's appearance before I went on record about what we should do. If you don't mind, let's table this for now.
• Fly, you said before that you had fallen prey to WP:OVERLINK, and you corrected one that I had missed. This policy states that you shouldn't redirect to the same article, and you do it twice in the last paragraph in this section. I went ahead and removed them.
• Since you discuss St. John's tenure as if he's the recast of the same character, and not as Victor as he's revealed to really be later, I removed the quotes around the word "Todd", and I also removed quotes from "scar", for a similar reason--that it was a real scar--well, you know what I'm saying, I'm sure. (I may have questions about the re-cast later.)
• I hope that the "Sexy Beast" ref supports everything in this paragraph. Again, if you could get access to this source...
• Since we haven't mentioned Todd's "second rape of Marti" yet, I wonder if we should remove the phrase and leave that the scar symbolized their history.
• Does the source state why the St. John scar went away? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I commented on having falling prey to WP:OVERLINKING when it came to linking the common word scar. But as for linking to the same article, that is allowed in certain cases. For example, the WP:OVERLINKING guideline states: "Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on (unless the link is to a redirect with possibilities that links to an appropriate section of the current article)." And Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Section links states: "To link to a section of the same article, e.g. in the lead of Promotion (chess), write: [[#Promotion to rook or bishop|promotion to a rook or bishop]]." That's essentially what I did; as shown here, I linked to relevant sections of the article, the latter being especially relevant because it explains what is meant by "the second rape of Marty"; I didn't link to the Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines article for that bit because it's already linked in the Background section. I don't mind much that you removed the links, though, especially the "his new face" link (I don't mind the removal of the "his new face" link at all; definitely not needed). As for having put "Todd" in quotation marks, that was part of a compromise (shown in the talk page archives) for editors who didn't like St. John's Todd being referred to as Todd; you know, because of the rewrite that he's not. Since I stressed to those editors that St. John is Todd at those moments in the storyline, I don't mind you having removed the quotation marks from there. I used quotations marks for the word scar because a scar usually refers to a permanently visible area on the skin, not usually simply to scarring that exists after any wound to the body. But again, since at that point in the storyline, it seemed that St. John's Todd had a scar, I don't mind much that you removed the quotation marks from "scar."

Yes, I'm pretty sure that the Nelson Branco source supports everything in that section, though I do wonder if it supports the exact wording for the John McBain part and I think the "symbolize Todd's 'second rape of Marty'" part is more so what Nelson Branco felt, no matter the fact that the storyline clearly indicated that the cut was a reflection of Todd being a rapist and having been thought to have raped Marty for a second time. So I'd rather that we not reword the "second rape of Marty" part so that it simply and vaguely relays that it symbolized their history. Of course, such wording is not completely vague in this case (what is meant by "history" with Todd and Marty is usually their rape history), but it's still vague. And, no, the Sexy Beast source does not state why "the second scar" was taken away; that's why only the St. John comment wondering why it was taken away is there. But the storyline clearly leads us to assume that it was simply a cut that healed until it was no longer visible; this goes back to what I stated above about that cut not having been a scar in the common sense of the word.

I'm pretty sure that the Sexy Beast source supports everything it is used for in the Todd Manning article. In fact, Nelson Branco had clearly copied some basic Todd Manning information from this article to write his Sexy Beast article, which I noted in this edit and in this section on TAnthony's talk page; I don't see where that section is in TAnthony's archives, though. As you know, in the Sources section above, I stated that I would contact Nelson Branco; however, at that time I did not know that he'd left TV Guide in 2011. I don't know how to get in contact him with him now, except for his Twitter page and Facebook page. I signed up to Twitter last night (I'd never signed up to Twitter before, I think; if I did, it was once and I never used it afterward) and contacted him that way; I'll later check to see if he replied. I did not contact him via Facebook because I don't want my personal Facebook account tied to my Wikipedia identity or vice versa. I'm anonymous on Wikipedia as Flyer22. I could create a different Facebook account just to contact him that way, however, or you could (let him know that we want his articles to help improve the Todd Manning Wikipedia article). This archived Nelson Branco source, which is used in the Todd Manning article, is currently the only online Nelson Branco article about Todd Manning and rape. Why that article is the only online archived source about that topic and the other two are not, I do not know. Flyer22 (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

How's this for a solution/compromise about linking: let's remove the link to "his new face", since the sentence states that it was during St. John's tenure. I think that we should keep the link to the second rape, since it does introduce a new topic, and see what future reviewers think. One of the reasons I removed them in the first place was because I suspect that they won't like them, but I could be wrong. I'm actually with you about the St. John years; as far as he, the other characters, and the audience knew, he was Todd, and the content about the recast should reflect that understanding, as long as we describe Howarth's return and how they dealt with it. I've noticed that we're getting very little of the controversy you experienced with this article in the past, which is probably a good thing.

Don't bother going to all the trouble of contacting Branco; I'll take your word for it that everything here is supported by the Sexy Beast article. Thanks for going through all the effort, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I might still go about contacting him via Facebook, however. It will also help me to reread these sources. Flyer22 (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"Todd's Theme" section

Resolved comments

• At first, I was considering suggesting re-naming the title of this section, but after reading it, I relented, since it looks like "Todd's theme" is somewhat of a technical term for viewers and producers. My biggest issue with this section, though, is that it's a little dry and musically technical. I'll do some copy-editing, and see what we can do about it; perhaps we can ask an editor more knowledgeable about music to look at it.
• Personally, I don't like to mix explanatory notes in with the reference section, although I admit that this is my own aesthetic preference, so you can reject this idea. For ref 13 (going from the sandbox version), I wonder if we can incorporate some of the content into the article. And if you have access to the entire SOD article, that would be great. I think that I'm going to work on this section in my sandbox again [6], so you can see what I mean. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I included the quote in The Music Directors source because that source is currently not accessible online, and that piece of the source is all I was given via email. I got most of that material, except for the David Nichtern source, via email (though I already knew about the Todd theme music aspect); a fan who stated that he or she has that source, and some other source, gave it to me, informing me of what the material states. Using quotes within references (there is a quote field especially for that) can give editors access to the relevant portion of sources that are not easily accessible. In this case, however, that note is not directly tied to the content in question, so I don't mind that you integrated it into the main text. I still don't have access to that source. Flyer22 (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Last sentence, 1st paragraph: should have a ref, I think.
• 3rd paragraph: I'm thinking that most of the quotes in here should be paraphrased, and the sentences re-structured. Let me know what you think.
• 1st sentence, 4th paragraph: This is too long, making it unclear, so I've broken it up a bit. Does the source describe what it means by Todd's "minious chords"? I'm going to assume that these chords refer to the Nora stalking, but if I'm wrong, please correct me. Also, nothing in these sentences are supported by the Nichtern interview; if we can't find support, I think we need to remove these.
• The About.com ref doesn't support anything about the music; it's about Todd and Teá, not about his return, his emotional breakdown, or his revenge scheme against Blair.
• Another problem I have with this section is that it doesn't utilize the solid sources. For example, it's missing some information we can gleam from the Nichtern interview. I'll go ahead and add it so you can see what I mean. To be honest, based upon what I'm seeing with the accessible sources, I'm a little concerned about the refs in this section. I think we need to be sure that the sources are actually supporting what they're supposed to support, and if they aren't, we should omit them and the statements.
• We had an edit conflict, and I'm about to leave the computer probably until tomorrow afternoon, so I'll address the above then. Side note: this is pretty interesting stuff, so I think it's important that we source it as well as we can. I can anticipate that further reviewers will want to know about more recent music history, and we'll have to tell them that nothing's available. I was curious to see if Todd's cues continued on GH, and it does, but not as ominously as some of the early OLTL stuff. For example, here's this clip between Todd and Johnny Zacharo [7]. It's too bad that we can't find anything about how music was handled on GH, if it even exists. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That sentence... You're going to have to remove that. It's an aspect of the show that is self-evident to anyone who watches St. John's early portrayal of Todd, where the creators used the previous Todd music for him, but I cannot source it.

I love that Nichtern blockquote. But, given the Malone blockquote, we may be pushing the blockquote factor with that; so I don't mind you breaking it up as long as nothing good is lost.

I have no idea what "minous chords" means, other than what the word minous means and that the line is referring to Todd's stalking of Nora Gannon. As for removing some of the content in that paragraph, the parts that are not directly attributed to the Nichtern source or The Music Directors are parts that were supposed to be attributed to The Music Directors source (based on the email I received years ago).

The About.com reference is used as an additional reference to show Todd's revenge scheme on Blair; that source starts off by noting Todd's return, meaning his "return from the dead." The revenge scheme is his custody battle against Blair after he "returned from the dead" and caught Blair having sex on the floor with Patrick Thornhart. It says "Todd finally returned to Llanview, took back The Sun, and set out to destroy his unfaithful wife, Blair, who had also become pregnant by Patrick." And "Enter Tea Delgado. Todd's determination to keep custody of his little daughter Starr, pushed him to his next scheme in the year 1997. He arranged for his attorney Tea Delgado to receive $5 million of his fortune, and in return she would agree to marry him. This scheme was to show the courts he had established a stable home for his little girl, and she would also have a step-mother to help in her care." The source beside that, the Daytime Digest source, also supports the revenge scheme on Blair; it's about Todd's emotional breakdown (generally closing himself off emotionally, except for hatred and to show kindness to the few people he cares about) after finding Blair on the floor having sex with Patrick, how Teá worked her way into his heart and how he came to love her (what the magazine declares as true love). But feel free to remove those two sources from that paragraph.

The Todd and Téa music bit you added, I didn't include that in the Todd Manning article, since that section links to the portion of the Téa Delgado article that addresses the Todd and Téa romance, including the music David Nichtern designed for their romance, but it's a good addition to this article as well. And your version is partly paraphrased and shorter, so it's not completely redundant.

Thanks for the YouTube clip. I don't recognize any of that as Todd's theme music. A good way to know if the music was designed for Todd is if the music was already a part of the show before Todd's arrival. But for examples of Todd's older theme music, there is this YouTube video I directed you to on my talk page, which documents the original Todd theme music (which is heard the moment Todd closes the door, and is played often in 1993 to 1997), and there's this video; it begins with Todd's original theme music, and, during the part in the parking lot where Téa, R.J., Hank and Bo walk up the stairs, Todd's 1998 theme music plays as he watches them all from the shadows (this is the One Live to Live 2000 live series episode where Todd comes back to Llanview for Téa). This video, starting at 5:31, when Todd starts imagining his different "split personalities," documents successive and different Todd theme music; the video also begins with what, due to the cryptic answer Todd gives Sam Rappaport about the alleged child sexual abuse aspect of the Todd split personality story, many fans (including me) and soap opera critics believe to be confirmation that Todd was raped by Peter Manning (his adoptive father). For Todd and Téa's theme music, there is this video, starting at 5:43 (it's the one that became their primary theme music, but was occasionally used for other moments (usually Todd moments), such as the aforementioned moment between Todd and Sam, and for other couples in the early 2000s when the Todd and Téa couple were absent from the series, before once again being used for Todd and Téa in their 2002 island storyline (as seen, for example, here, starting at 5:29)...which I like to think is because of the letter I sent to the show about that topic. And there is this video (the music heard at the beginning of the clip). This music, the music that starts as soon as Todd (as the childlike "split personality" Tom) and Téa kiss, also played quite often for Todd and Téa; for example, it's also heard in the first Todd and Téa clip of this paragraph (where Téa walks in on Viki speaking with Todd, and when Téa is speaking with Viki) and here (starting at 6:08; coincidentally or maybe not so coincidentally, Téa is wearing the same outfit in that scene as she is in the scene where she kisses "Tom"); I don't remember this music playing for any other couple. The Todd and Blair couple didn't have any music that I know of (except for maybe at some point in the early 2000s during the dead-baby lie storyline; I'll have to look further into that). Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ya know, I think I'm inclined to keep the "self-evident" line, and see how far we can get with it. I mean, we can argue that it's non-controversial and doesn't require a ref, so let's keep it for now.

I'm okay with keeping the blockquote here. One of the ways I "illustrate" an article with few choices for images is with blockquotes, as a way to break up the text, like this one: Themes in Maya Angelou's autobiographies.

Your responses about the About.com ref is satisfactory to me; I think the new version both tightens up the prose and deals with the sources.

To tell you the truth, I don't really pay that much attention to the music in GH, unless it's obvious, probably because I don't know much about how TV is scored or that much about music in general. GH doesn't seem to score for characters, although it does score for couples. Wow, your knowledge about OLTL is very impressive. Maybe you should write that book! ;) At any rate, I'll transfer the sandbox version to the draft version now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Before continuing onto the next section, I have a question/issue to raise: I'm wondering if the Redemption section that follows better belongs in the later section that discusses Todd's redemption. I don't think it really fits here, since it's about Todd's spiritual journey to redemption, and not really about his early development like the other subsections are about. What do you think about folding this into the later section? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The theme music thing is easy to notice when certain music only or usually plays for a certain character or couple. For example, it seems that you noticed that General Hospital creates theme music for couples, without having read about that in a soap opera magazine or on a soap opera website.

Regarding the Concept on redemption section: I included that as part of the Character creation section (now the Creation and development section in the Todd sandbox) because the redemption aspect is a part of the creation/development of the Todd character. I decided to use the Early writing and literary analysis section to explore the writing on that, other aspects of Todd's storylines and critical analysis of such storylines. So I'd rather that something about the redemption stay in the creation section. Maybe move some information from that section that you think fits better in the Early writing and literary analysis section? Oh, if you're wondering why there is not a Later writing and literary analysis section, it's because later writing is covered by the Casting and portrayals section and sections that follow that; that material seems better in those sections than placed in a section about later writing (not to mention that there is not much literary analysis from WP:Reliable sources about Todd's later storylines; critical analysis, sure). Flyer22 (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, if we keep the "literary analysis" aspect of the heading, I wonder if we should make "analysis" plural. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Fly, one of my niches here on WP is Maya Angelou, so I have some experience in writing/creating/improving literature articles, which makes me think that we should approach the following sections differently. Many lit articles have a "Themes" section; I'm thinking that this article should also have one. That way, we could put the discussion about redemption and archetypes there, along with some of the content in later sections about rape, "teens manhandled", the recast, ect. If we did that, we wouldn't have to necessarily follow a chronological structure, which is what lit articles do anyway. What do you think about that? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. Only parts that make better sense in chronological order have been put that way. The recast information in the St. John section and the recast and "teens manhandled" aspects in the Reception and impact section are not about themes; they are about controversies and are therefore important to the Reception and impact section. I prefer descriptive titles except for in spots that they are not needed and I don't think that we should label something a theme unless it's identified as such by a WP:Reliable source; and even then, if it's the critics' interpretation of a theme (or themes) instead of being confirmed as something the writers and/or other creators set out to do, then I feel that should be made clear. That's why for the Avatar (2009 film) article, I and others (but me especially) kept the Themes and inspirations section focused on the definite themes, which are themes that Cameron states that he put into the film, and we have the Critical reception section and Themes in Avatar article to deal with the critics' interpretation. Similarly, since the themes in The Hunger Games (film) article are (so far) about what critics interpreted as themes, the Themes section is in the Reception section. So keeping both of those articles in mind, if we include a Themes section in the Todd Manning article, I would want a similar flow...except that it's best that we don't put the Themes section in the reception section of the Todd Manning article. I wouldn't mind much if you removed the "Early writing and literary analysis" heading and its subsection headings and replaced all of that with a Themes heading and slightly different subheadings, but that section is mostly about the writing and I wouldn't want us or anyone else to be tempted to put the "Signature scar and hair" and "'Todd's theme' and related cues" sections there; I definitely feel that we should keep the Character creation section (and its subsections a part of that section). Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You make some excellent points, especially about if the sources don't identify these topics as themes, we shouldn't, either. Maybe we can put some of the content in the analysis section up in the Character development section; let me play around with it and see what I can come up with. Which will probably be tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"Disputed" sections

Resolved comments

Of course, I put "disputed" in quotes because things have been nicely harmonious thus far. I think the best way to move forward is for me to bring these "disputed" sections into my sandbox as I've done before and (please forgive the cliche) let my creative juices flow. As I go, I'll come up with suggestions about where the content should go. For now, I think I'll just lump the content together, work on improving the prose and sources, and see where things go. I may or may not be verbal as I go through the process, and then I'll report back. Please be patient as I work through my (ugh, here's another cliche) "process". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Concept on redemption

As I've spent some time working on things, I agree that this section should remain in the "Character development" section, since redemption is such an important part of the development of Todd as a character. You'll see, though, that I expanded it a bit, both by taking content from the next section (which I'll fix next) and by adding some things from Hayward. Fly, instead of recreating everything I've done, please look at it and bring up any concerns/issues/disagreements that you have. I may decide to move some of this section to the next one, or put more of the next section into this one; it depends on what I come up with at the time.

I also wonder if we should change the title of the subsection. What do you think about using the term "redeem" (as described by Hayward) as a technical term and call it something like "Redeeming Todd"? That's one of the reasons I added it from Hayward, because it really is a soap term that's important in the development of this character. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Literary section(s)

I've replaced this section with content from my sandbox. I bring your attention to a few things. First, it's noticeably shorter, for three reasons: some of the content was placed in the "Redemption" section; I tightened up the prose somewhat, which often results in reducing the length; and I removed some parts I didn't think was necessary. We can talk about if I made the right decision in placing content, and if some of the current version should go elsewhere or should be organized differently. We can talk about if the new "Early writing" section should be separated into subsections, although my opinion is that it's unnecessary to do so.

We can also talk about what I cut, but I think I made them correctly. I tried to focus on the literary and critical aspects of the writing about Todd and his character. For example, I don't think the storyline aspects in the original version, especially paragraph 6 of the "Archetypes and representation" subsection, is about Todd. I did keep the content that has to do with his specific actions and storyline, especially the theme of how the writers set about redeeming him in order to keep him on OLTL. That's really what this entire new section is about, I think. I was thinking that we should rename this new version, but after considering it, I think the name still fits.

I'm actually quite proud of this new version of this and the "Redemption" section. I was inspired by Hush (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), which was (mostly) written by one of my WP mentors and one of the editors I respect most here. It proves that you can discuss a subject in pop culture thoughtfully, intelligently, and even academically. I think that's what I meant at the beginning of this process when I said that one of my goals was that this article be more "academic". I'm not sure that I come close to the Buffy article, but I wanted to at least try. It was challenging, but really fun. Please tell me what you think. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm generally fine with your changes on this matter. I don't think we should change the heading to "Redeeming Todd"; this is because that section is significantly more than just about redeeming Todd, and we already have the Conception on redemption subsection in the Background section and the Rape and redemption subsection in the Reception and impact section. I'm not sure what you mean by "I don't think the storyline aspects in the original version, especially paragraph 6 of the 'Archetypes and representation' subsection, is about Todd."; all of it is about Todd, from what I remember reading of the Hayward source and that's how I crafted that material years ago.

Moving on to specifically commenting on the changes: One of the sources I cited is "Dutta," but you used the name "Butta" in its place for the text; either I got a name wrong or you did. Also, I think that Dutta's commentary about the gang rape fits higher in that section, and that the section is best concluding with the redemption aspect without going back to the gang rape topic. You have a bit of reception there about redeeming Todd, such as viewers feeling that the writers were going to redeem Todd, and you've included a bit of Howarth's negative feelings on the redeeming matter; I feel that those aspects fit better in the Reception and impact section, where I currently have them. Todd's redemption was controversial, and that is an aspect of reception to the character. Regarding two sources you removed from the section... The Christine Scodari source helps support the bit about it having been controversial to redeem Todd. Why remove that source? Is it because you felt it wasn't needed? And why not use the pieces that relayed that "Author Gerry Waggett said the 'close-ups of the rapists' faces during the assault, distorted to capture Marty's scared and drunken perspective, rank among the show's most graphic images' and "'Marty's subsequent quest to bring her rapists to justice dominated throughout the summer'"? Or do you feel that would fit best in the Reception and impact section?

On a side note: Buffy the Vampire Slayer is one of my favorite television shows of all time (that show is briefly mentioned on my user page), and I know a couple of editors who have written good or great Wikipedia material with regard to that show, including Zythe (check out his user page). Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

And, oh, I see that with regard to the "Redeeming Todd" title, you meant that as a suggestion to changing the "Concept on redemption" title; I'm not sold on changing that to Redeeming Todd, because I think that heading should be clear that it's a section that is more so about the concept. Changing it to "Redeeming Todd" would simply make it tempting to combine the Early writing and literary analysis section there. Flyer22 (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I also see that you moved some of what was in the Early writing and literary analysis section to the Concept on redemption section; that section is not simply about the concept any longer, so we need to fix something in that regard. How about, since the Early writing and literary analysis section is a part of the development, we make that a subsection of the Creation and development section, and then have the Concept on redemption section as a subsection of it? I'm thinking of two subsections for "Early writing and literary analysis": One that is focused on the archetypes/gang rape and the other that is focused on the concept of redeeming Todd/redeeming Todd.

Also, in the Concept on redemption section, I'm not sure that the Branco "Shame and Prejudice: Mishandling sin on ‘OLTL’" source supports the "Malone and executive producer Susan Bedsow Horgan chose the controversial option of redeeming Todd rather than killing him off or sending him to prison, which is what soaps had usually done with irredemable rapists in the past." line; that's why I had that line, which is slightly different in my version, supported by the Hayward and Christine Scodari sources. But then again, you made a wider mistake with that Branco source; it is currently used to cite Hayward text. Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think your idea about how to structure things is fine. I'll go ahead and follow it, but if I get anything wrong, please correct. I wonder, though, if we should put the "Concept on redemption" and "Redeeming Todd" subsections together.

Re: paragraph 6 as mentioned above: the content I cut was about Powell and Marty. I don't think what it says about Powell's "redemption" (which if I understand it correctly, wasn't really a redemption because he ends up going bad and killing himself, right?). I think (sorry to say) that the plot description is a little fancrufty, and that my version is a little more succinct. I also think that the description of the rape, with the close-ups, better belongs in your Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines, since it's about how the rape was filmed, and not in a discussion about Todd's character as we should have here. My other problem is that it really doesn't fit anywhere anymore. Perhaps it does belong in the "Reception" section; remind me about it when we get there, please. I went ahead and cut Howarth's reaction as you suggest. I thought that it would be a nice way to end the narrative, but I agree that it's better in later sections.

Just fixed the Hayward/Scodari ref. Thanks for catching it; it must have gotten mixed up in all the re-writing I was doing. I wasn't able to access it online, so I need the page number and volume for Scodari, please, if you have it. I've also fixed the Dutta typo; again, thanks for the catch.

About Buffy: my husband, who's a big fan of Joss Whedon (Firefly is his all-time favorite TV show), and I have been slowly going through the series. "Hush" was the most recent episode we watched. I like Buffy much more than he does, but it hasn't grabbed me like my friends have told me that it would. Perhaps my expectations were too large. I'm sorry, but it just hasn't become the end all to be all like it has been for others. I dunno, maybe it's because we've missed the zeitgeist of it all. But anyway... ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, put the "Concept on redemption" and "Redeeming Todd" subsections together.

Well, the Powell aspect was a redemption direction at the time. And he was a serial rapist, not a killer, unless he was raping and killing. But I don't remember that he killed anyone during those years. Maybe he did when they brought him back to the show in 2008 or 2009. The Powell aspect is mentioned in the Rape and redemption section, though, so we can tackle it there. As for the Gerry Waggett piece, it's already in that other article, but I don't see how it doesn't fit in this one as well; and, remember, it speaks of more than just the closeup factor.

I don't have the page number for the Scodari source, other than the online page number for it; this URL for it (now a dead link), which is page 3, was an online reference that seemed to be more so an article; it seemed to be focusing on one aspect of the book. Flyer22 (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

And about Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it didn't become one of my all-time favorite shows until the show ended (well, actually, a little before that point); overall, it's just a really well told story, in my opinion. There is also the love story factor for some viewers; for example, while some viewers are more so for the Buffy and Angel love story, I am more so for the Spike and Buffy love story (don't read the summaries of the Angel and Spike articles, not the lead or otherwise, especially the second paragraph of the Spike article, unless you want to get spoiled); in fact, it was the season 5 episode "Fool for Love" (don't read more than a brief summary about it unless you want to get spoiled), which has interaction between Spike and Buffy, that pulled me into watching the show from the beginning. Before that point, I'd only watched a couple of episodes and not all of those episodes either. One of those episodes was focused on Oz turning into a werewolf, from the season you are currently on (season 4), and, because of the werewolf design (design of the costume), the show looked too silly for me to enjoy. But I was wrong. And I've warned you about the spoilers primarily because some aspects, including big aspects of the series, can be ruined if spoiled on those matters. Flyer22 (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan, I think that the "There was concern within the OLTL fan community that the writers would redeem Todd like the writers of General Hospital 'redeemed' the character Luke Spencer, whose rape of his future wife Laura was explained away as a seduction, but the producers issued a statement that a romance between Todd and Marty would never happen." text should be left for the reception section, for reasons I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Redemption sections now together. I'll look at it later, with fresher eyes, to see if we need to do any further re-structuring. I put more of what I had missed from the original version; I still don't know what to do with the Powell stuff, which again, I don't think fits anywhere anymore. I'll try and hunt down the Scordari source at my university library. I also went ahead and removed the Luke/Laura stuff as per your request. BTW, I love Spike. There was the episode before "Hush"--"Something Blue (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)", in which Buffy and Spike "get engaged"; I was tickled by it and quite enjoyed their chemistry. At any rate, I think we're done with these sections, so I'll move onto the next ones next. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

With regard to the Powell content, if you simply mean mentioning something about Powell having been redeemed, I don't mind that not being included. But I don't see where I included material that Powell was redeemed; my wording, based on the Hayward source, is "He is publicly forgiven by Marty herself, which enrages Todd when he and fellow rapist Zach receive eight-year sentences in prison, compared to Powell's three months of jail time." If you mean Powell content in general, we disagree on that, since I believe that the Powell aspect should be noted in this article because it was a significant aspect of the Todd storyline, which is why Hayward discusses it. It's why I included it in the writing and reception sections. Powell was used by the writers to contrast Todd's personality -- a good person to contrast a bad and/or evil person. And the way that he was treated by the writers, despite being a rapist himself, led to what Hayward describes as having polarized "the gap between rapists and the raped." I see that you kept that aspect with regard to Powell in the writing section of your draft, by touching on the "departs from the rape paradigm" piece. I also included the "departs from the rape paradigm" aspect, but in the reception section; so I suppose we'll worry about that bit when we get to the reception section. I included it there, though, because it seemed to be Hayward giving reception and/or commenting on the reception regarding that matter.

By the way, earlier this hour, I noticed that you found an online version for the "Howarth Isn't Out To Be Mr. Nice Guy" reference; that's great. You may have noticed, but I've additionally used that reference for reception material in the article. Also, your "Coming Clean: A Soap Character Who Can't be Laundered" expansion is a very good addition.

As for Spike and Buffy, yes, I enjoyed that episode mostly because of their interaction.

And regarding spoilers, I've been thinking for weeks now how much more you would have enjoyed the Todd character (in my opinion) if you had watched a lot of his history from the beginning...unspoiled. Flyer22 (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to working on this article; I've been distracted by RL concerns and other events that have occurred here in the project, although I believe I've been able to deal with it sufficiently and can get back to Todd. This afternoon, I've added some content about Powell Lord as per Fly's suggestions, especially Hayward's comparisons between his "redemption" and Todd's. Yes, let's put off the "rape paradigm" issue as you suggest; it's possible we'll do as you say and restructure then. I can see why you created the Rape article; so much of the research I've done warrants such an article. I know I was sort of kidding before when I said I might work on it, but it may be a natural extension of this one. (I've found that the creation/expansion of one article naturally evolves into another.)

As promised, I looked at the Rape and Redemption sections again, and other than a few fixes, I think the structure's fine. And of course, you're right about not following Todd through the years, and as I've worked on this article, I regret that. However, two things: 1) perhaps a semi-objective eye is what this article needs; and 2) it speaks to the power of both the character and his portrayer that someone like me, who was introduced to Todd so late in the game, can be so intrigued by him that I'm inspired to study his character and the impact he's had on soaps and to a lesser degree, to our society.

It's interesting that we're talking about Buffy and Spike in this context, because (not being as spoiled about Spike), I can see that he's going down the "redemption pathway" as well. Last night, we watched "Doomed", and I loved his impassioned declarations of intent to help fight evil at the end of the episode. How do you "redeem" a vampire? You take away his powers! It poses different challenges than redeeming a rapist, but it certainly has lots of similarities. I heart Spike, and for many of the same reasons I'm drawn to Todd. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind that you took a significant break from working on this article; I'm in no hurry with regard to this article, and am often busy with other things, as noted to you before. As for the Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines article (I at first thought you meant I'd created the Rape article), I don't mind at all if you start working on that article (not that we WP:OWN any articles here anyway).

Yes, Todd and Spike are similar in personality and circumstance in a variety of ways and that's a big reason why I'm drawn to both characters. I'm also sure that Spike has raped women in his day as a vampire, though the likely rape dynamic (all of the stuff that comes with that) is not why I'm drawn to Spike. Flyer22 (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Casting and portrayals

Resolved comments

I like this section (both subsections about Howarth and St. John) for the most part, but true to form, I have some suggestions about the structure and some possible cuts. I think that I'd leave how the St. John subsection is structured, but perhaps we should move around some of the content in Howarth's. I say that because the St. John subsection is all about his casting and how he played Todd. I agree that we should treat St. John's tenure as a re-cast, since for all extensive purposes, it was. All parties involved--the actors, the producers, the writers--believed that it was a re-cast, and I agree that's how we should treat it here, as long as we explain, which we do, Howarth's return.

The Howarth subsection, though, is partly about his casting and portrayal of Todd, but it also has information about Todd's character. The 1st 2 paragraphs are about the casting, for sure. The third paragraph is about Howarth's feelings about the rape and his opinions about Todd's motivation for it, so I'm not that sure that it even belongs in the article; if it belongs, perhaps it should go earlier, when the rape itself is discussed. We already talked about the 4th paragraph, about Todd's clothing, and possibly putting it in the "Scar and hair" section; of course, if we did that, we'd have to rename the section to "Appearance", as previously discussed. I'm undecided about that at this point, though, and suggest that we talk about it when we get there.

Regarding the rest of the Howarth section: I think that these paragraphs are more about Todd's character than how Howarth played him. I realize that it's hard to separate them, since much of Todd's character was influenced by how Howarth played him, but we've already talked about how much of Todd's personality was due to the collaboration between Howarth and the writers. I would imagine that much of that collaboration spilled over in St. John's performance, so I think much of the content would better fit elsewhere. (I also don't know how I feel about the bird content, but we can talk about that later, too.) I propose this: Why don't we create a new section, entitled "Characteristics". I noticed that the article Flyer22 has stated inspired the feel and structure of this article, Jason Voorhees, has this section, and it focuses upon that character's personality characteristics. I think that we can do the same for this article, and place much of this content (and perhaps other content) here. What do you think about that? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you feel that the paragraph "about Howarth's feelings about the rape and his opinions about Todd's motivation for it" don't belong in this article; that is a part of Howarth's portrayal, the way he approached that matter as an actor. And even if it did not fit in that section, it fits in the Creation and development section; it's common place to include the actor's take on a character in an article about that character. That's why other Howarth opinions on Todd are in this article; his opinion on rape, and Todd's rape of Marty in particular, is one of the most relevant ones, which also relates to why he left the show in 1995.

As for the rest of section, I included that material there because those aspects mostly had to do with Howarth's portrayal of the character and I did not want to overwhelm the general parts of the article with the Howarth content, especially since Howarth was not portraying the role at the time. As for the bird content, that became a significant part of portraying Todd, which is why I included it. If it were trivial, it would not have such a significant piece in the article. As noted in the article, that bird was often used to convey Todd's thoughts, especially Todd's sense of humor. I agree to have a Characteristics section; we could have the physical appearance material as a subsection of that, but I still want to include "scar" in one of the subheadings (as noted earlier on this talk page). I would suggest that the scar and hair section be divided if they did not fit together...but, as you know, they do. If we gather enough content for Todd's wardrobe, we could simply have a "Scar and hair" subsection and a "Wardrobe" subsection. I don't think that the Howarth portrayal section should be smaller than the St. John portrayal section, however; so if something in the St. John portrayal section, such as the hair aspect, is more relevant in the Characteristics section, let's move it there.

On a side note: When you stated "I noticed that the article Flyer22," was that a typo? Flyer22 (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

First off, I probably should've been more clear; I didn't mean an article about you (god forbid!), I meant the article you've stated influenced this one, Jason Voorhees. Again, I propose creating a new section, "Characteristics", and placing content about Todd's personality characteristics, similar to what's been done in the Jason article.

Ok, here are my suggestions about a "Characteristics" section, which would mean some re-structuring. I think that the best way to illustrate it is to make a mock-up of what I'm thinking, again in my sandbox [8]. Notice that I did away with "Creation and development", and moved the sections to higher levels, so that "Background" is its own section, something that's common in character bios. Then I made "Characteristics" its own section, with the Scar and hair section and the music sections as subsections. I agree with you that the scar and hair content should stay together. I'm not sure that there's enough content to warrant a separate "Wardrobe" subsection; as I look at it closer, it may fit in the Howarth section, but if it stays, we need to reword it a bit. I'll show you what I mean when I get to copyediting it. Then I made "Early writing and literary analysis" into a section, with the rape and redemption as subsections. I think that we can place some of the content from the Howarth section in the Characteristics section, but I'll work on that after we resolve this stuff about restructuring.

I see your point about the content about the humor aspects of Howarth's portrayal, although we may have to re-word it a bit. Maybe we can create a "Humor" subsection, which isn't something I'm attached to. (I'm brainstorming a bit here.) I also agree that the content in the St. John subsection about Todd's hair might fit better in the above section. Notice that I only included the first two paragraphs of the Howarth section in my sandbox, which I did because I think it's clear they still belong there.

Regarding the goal to not to "overwhelm the general parts of the article with the Howarth content": I think that this article will naturally be slanted more towards Howarth-heavy content, mostly because most of the press and information about Todd was written during Howarth's reign. There was a lot of attention about the rape storyline, so more was written during that time. As editors, we need to follow what the sources state about a topic. On a semi-unrelated note, I think that there needs to be something at the beginning the Howarth section about the dates of his portrayal. This source [9] has that information. Perhaps like this: "Howarth has played Todd on-and-off since he originated the role in 1992. His tenure on One Life to Live included 1992-1995; 2000-2003; and 2011-2012. Howarth brought Todd to General Hospital in 2012 and 2013, after OLTL was cancelled on ABC, and again on OLTL during its short run as a web series in 2013." We'll have to find sources for some of it. Then we can go into the existing content. What do you think? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I didn't think you were stating that there is an actual Wikipedia article about me.

I don't like the idea of not having a section heading that focuses on the creation of Todd. We can certainly keep the Creation and development heading and have the Characteristics heading as well, whether as a part of the Creation and development section or its own section, just like the Jason Voorhees article has a Concept and creation section in addition to a Characteristics section. That stated, I understand that we'd be delving into having an even longer Creation and development section (with its subsections), and characteristics are a part of character development...so information about that would fit better under a heading emphasizing development than as a separate piece. I also don't think that the theme music aspect is so much of a characteristic, what I think people usually think of as a character characteristic (which is the character's personality or physical appearance, including wardrobe), but rather something the show sometimes plays for the character. I would rather the Characteristics section only consist of personality and physical appearance information. Something that some other fictional character articles do is have the characteristic material under a Personality heading; the Personality heading could be a subsection of the Creation and development section. But then again, there are bits throughout the Creation and development section that address Todd's personality, from original personality to the changes that occurred. So I don't know. Sigh. I think we have to keep in mind that there is often going to be overlap with regard to whatever heading we choose for matters in this article, and that the best course of action in that regard is to make sure that the sections are mostly about what the headings describe them as being about instead of worrying too much over whether or not the sections are the only sections to address certain topics.

Regarding the "overwhelm the general parts of the article with the Howarth content" line, as noted, my rationale was based on that material mostly belonging in the section about Howarth's portrayal and also about Howarth not portraying the role at the time. I had a number of St. John fans (as in Wikipedia editors who are fans of St. John as Todd) to interact with at that time, and not letting my biases (preferring Howarth as Todd) come in with regard to giving coverage to both portrayals of Todd was a definite concern for me. I am aware that we should follow the sources and WP:BALASPS and WP:VALID in this regard, and appropriately balancing the aspects is what I had in mind. The article was mostly focused on Howarth, as it is now. But when it comes to coverage among the sources, while Howarth has gotten the more notable coverage, St. John portrayed this role for several years and received a lot of coverage as well.

I'm not sure about the date thing; it is covered by the lead and infobox (however, and I noted this before, the lead should not be focused on the level of date information it's currently focused on). I don't feel too strongly one way or the other on the date thing. Correction, though: You noted "1992-1995," but Howarth returned to the series in 1996 and portrayed Todd from that point on until 1998 as well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, sweety, what did you think I meant? ;)

Tell you what: let me play some more in my sandbox, and try moving some things around from the Howarth section, and see what happens. Then I'll come back here and explain. I suspect that we'll have enough content to put back a "Development" section, since I think I agree with you that the music content really doesn't belong in "Characteristics". I also agree that personality and appearance content should go there as well, and we may need to add a new "Personality" section. Let's see what happens as we go along.

I've already moved the third paragraph in the Howarth section, which is about his feelings for Todd's motivations about the rape, to the end of the 2nd paragraph in the "Archetypes and rape" subsection, and reworded it a bit. BTW, it looks like the "Roger Howarth interview". Soap Opera Weekly. 1993-08-10." ref is actually the "It's only make-believe" article from SOW; I'll fix that as I go along.

Perhaps one of the benefits of my involvement at this late date, is that I haven't had time to form any biases or loyalties, although I suspect that I'd be in your position, anyway. I suppose one solution is to put the information gleaned from St. John's tenure in Victor Lord, Jr., since that's who he really was all along, even if he and everyone else thought he was Todd. But since we're treating his tenure like a recast, I think it should go here.

I think that I agree with you about the dates; I forgot about the infobox. Remember that I'm using my sandbox to reorganize and restructure, and that's where I'll do the copy-editing and source review, too. If I have any questions, I'll come back here. Thanks again. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Trevor St. John material should remain in the Todd Manning article because Trevor St. John portrayed Todd Manning for several years. That his version of Todd was later rewritten as Victor Lord, Jr. does not change that. That he portrayed Todd is a WP:Real world matter, and should therefore be predominantly addressed in this article, as was explained to editors in this and this discussion. As those discussions make clear, to state that Trevor St. John was portraying Victor Lord, Jr. all along is to take an in-universe perspective. The real-world matter is that Trevor St. John portrayed Todd Manning and Victor Lord, Jr. on the series. As for biases, LOL, it seems to me that you are already biased toward Howarth's portrayal of Todd.

As for your latest restructuring, including this: Well, with the Creation and development heading back, I feel that the Signature scar and hair section should be a subsection of that, for reasons we've already discussed (those aspects are a significant a part of Todd's creation/development). How about making the Characteristics section (which includes its Signature scar and hair section) a subsection of the Creation and development section? That's what I thought you were originally going to do. Although the Early writing and literary analysis section is also about Todd's development, and even includes Malone's comments on developing Todd, let's go ahead and leave that as its own section for now, especially since it's significantly about others' interpretations of Todd's development (the analysis). I would suggest that we separate the words creation and development from the Creation and development heading (and I remember that you suggested having separate sections on that), but those two things are so tied together in this case that their separation would seem artificial to me; see the Background section for what I mean on that. Also, it would be best if the beginning of the Characteristics section has a subheading; this is because not only does having one subheading seem out of proportion, but readers are known to overlook initial material that does not have a subheading, and this is because that material is not indicated from the table of contents. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I moved everything around before I got a chance to explain what I was doing. I think you're right about the Scar and hair section being a part of the Creation and development section, but I'm going to disagree with you about the Characteristics section. It's customary for character bios to have a separate Characteristics section, and I think there's going to be enough content for it. I also agree with you about keeping the Creation and development section heading separate, for the reasons you state, but I don't think we should create a subsection just for the sake of it. Plus, in my mind, a description of a character's personality (Characteristics) is different from a description of his creation and development. Let's see how it develops and perhaps we'll be able to create a subsection, anyway. And of course I agree with you about a separate Literary section, since again, it's often customary in these kinds of articles. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that the paragraph that begins Howarth was perplexed by writers... should remain in the Howarth section, but I'm a little concerned about its sources. If you had access to those sources and could provide them, or at least give more complete sourcing info, that would be great. I can live without putting my eyes on the "Roger Howarth". Soap Opera Magazine. October 1994. source, but I'm not as confident about the "Roger Howarth". Soap Opera Digest. Late 1994. source, because I can tell you that it won't pass mustard with any reviewer. I think that if we don't find the SOD source, we should omit the content it's supposed to support. If we do that, though, we should restructure the first part of the paragraph, at least into another part of the Howarth section. For now, I'll leave the paragraph alone until this is resolved.

I think that the last three paragraphs in the Howarth section should go into the new "Characteristics" section; I'll go ahead and move them now, and work on them from there. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It's also customary for character biographies to have the Characteristics section be a part of the Development section, and this is because the characteristics have to do with having developed the character; I argued having the Characteristics section be a part of the Creation and development section based on my experience with editing fictional character articles, including being involved with such articles via WP:TV, WP:FILM and WP:SOAPS. That stated, since I suggested that we somewhat follow the Jason Voorhees outline, and since the Characteristics section can stand fine on its own, I won't harp on having it be a subsection of the Creation and development section. I'm also not satisfied with the Early writing and literary analysis section not being a subsection of the Creation and development section, but I won't harp on that at this time or perhaps at all...for similar reasons with regard to the Characteristics section and per what I already stated above on it. As for "agree[ing] with [me] about keeping the Creation and development section heading separate, for the reasons [I] state, but [you] don't think we should create a subsection just for the sake of it," keep in mind (just in case you read it wrong) that I was arguing not to split the Creation and development section into individual sections. Also, I was not arguing to create a subsection just for the sake of creating it; you took care of the matter I was referring to, about the subheading/table of contents factor, anyway by moving the Signature scar and hair section back to the Creation and development section.

As for the "Roger Howarth. Soap Opera Magazine. October 1994." source vs. the "Roger Howarth. Soap Opera Digest. Late 1994." source, it seems to me that the issue that you have with accepting one source but not the other is the word late: I suggest removing the word late. I stated before that I would get around to looking for more detail when it comes to relaying the citation information for some of the sources, but I have not had a good chance to do that (except for some instances where you and I specifically addressed some sources). I am often very busy; even when you see me reverting vandalism, I am usually simultaneously busy with other online work. You've helped out with filling in some of the sourcing details, and I appreciate that. Still, I figured that we will go back to what we need to go back to with regard to sourcing later, after all of the restructuring, such as our preferences for WP:REFNAMES. It makes more sense to me to go ahead and deal with the WP:REFNAME aspect, though, instead of going back through everything and changing the refnames. I prefer that the refnames use the author name or be clearer so that they are easier to use when editing the article (whether identifying what a refname is about or rearranging material), while you seem to prefer number aspects for refnames. Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

But Fly, the Voorhees article's "Characteristics" section is a stand-alone section. So I think we're accomplishing the same goal here. Actually, my issue with not accepting the SOD source is that it's incomplete. The least it needs is the source title and the complete date, so "1994" isn't enough. I can tell you that the SOD source won't pass mustard with reviewers, and that they will insist that if we can't provide a complete reference, then we'll have to remove it and all that it supports. I've been using VisualEditor, which exhibits the ref names with number aspects. However, I don't mind going through and changing them as per your request. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as I've started going through the refs, I found what could be a major bug with VE. Either that, or I'm not using it correctly, something I either need to tell the VE folks about (although I can't imagine they wouldn't know about something so major), or figure out what I'm doing wrong. Either way, it's my problem and I'm taking care of it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I know that the Jason Voorhees "Characteristics" section is a standalone section; that's why I stated, "since I suggested that we somewhat follow the Jason Voorhees outline, and since the Characteristics section can stand fine on its own, I won't harp on having it be a subsection of the Creation and development section."

As for the "Roger Howarth. Soap Opera Magazine. October 1994." source vs. the "Roger Howarth. Soap Opera Digest. Late 1994." source, how can one "pass [the] mustard with reviewers" and not the other? That's my point. They both have the same format, except that the Soap Opera Digest source uses the word late. These sources passed WP:GA years ago, but I know that they both would be scrutinized by WP:FA reviewers. They both only support a bit of material, and not Howarth's more important statements, so it won't matter much if these two sources and their content are removed until, or if ever, properly sourced. Flyer22 (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the SOD source is that it's not specific enough. Yes, it's the same format as the SOM source, but SOD is a monthly publication so it needs the month in which it was published. The SOD source has the bare minimum of what's needed, and I do think what it supports is important, so I'm willing to risk it and see if reviewers accept it. I'll go ahead and remove the SOD content as per your suggestion, but I think we should keep the SOM content. Please revert if that's not what you want me to do. Chri

stine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice that the Soap Opera Digest (SOD) source was missing the month (I mean that I surely noticed it before, but not recently...until now); I understand your reasoning on that matter better now. Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Characteristics

Resolved comments

I'm thinking that the previous section here is getting way too long, but I wanted to talk about the new "Characteristics" section, especially the three paragraphs I added from the Howarth section. What do you think of what I did the 1st two paragraphs in this new section?

Now that I'm fairly certain that I've fixed the ref name problems throughout what we've worked on thus far, I have issues with the sources in the afore-mentioned three paragraphs. We've already talked about using YouTube clips as sources. Now while I'm not unopposed to using them, I think that they should have strict restrictions. I think that the clips need to specifically support our assertions. For example, I feel that the Carol Swift clip, which we still haven't decided that we're actually using, is appropriate because it fulfills the criteria: it's exposition about a specific event, Todd's supposed rape of Carol. Do you have access to the YouTube clips mentioned in these paragraphs? We'd need these clips: "OLTL Todd & Tea 1998: Dinner At The Sun"; "Todd and Téa: Todd kicks Téa out into the cold, One Life to Live (1998-02-04). Retrieved on 2008-07-24." and the ref that describes "Sam Rappaport and Victoria Lord discuss Peter Manning's likely rape of Todd on Todd's 14th birthday. This is further discussed throughout the year. One Life to Live (1998)." For them to work, we'd need, for example, for the second clip in the above list to specifically support the statement that the Todd throws Tea out in the cold because of his fear of intimacy. If the clips don't support the assertions in this way, I propose removing the content, because you know that they won't pass mustard with any reviewer. I think they're good and valid statements, but if we can't back them up, they unfortunately should be removed. If we decide to not use clips at all, as we've discussed, they should be removed anyway.

Also: do you have access to these sources: "Todd Finds True Love – With His Wife! (Téa)". Daytime Digest . October 1998."; "Todd and Téa Sleep Together. Soap Opera Weekly. 98-04-07."; and ""THE YEAR IN SOAPS! THE BEST OF '98 PLUS PREVIEW '99". Soap Opera Update. 1998." And one more thing about source utilization: I do have access to the Dutta source, and unfortunately, I don't think that it fully supports the statement. While it does state that the sexual abuse of Todd by his adopted father happened, it doesn't state that it was the reason for Todd's low libido. Actually Dutta says that it provides "mitigating reasons" for his rape of Marty, and that it was conceived to make Todd more sympathetic. For sure, that should be added to the "Redeeming Todd" section, as a part of the discussion about what the writers and producers did to redeem him.

I hope that we can find sources to back up the content here, specifically these things: Todd's bad table manners ('cause that's just cute); his nightmares and Tea's attempts to help him with them; his fear of intimacy and how it was related to his own childhood abuse; and his use of weapons. I also remember reading (perhaps it was in this article, but I don't remember where) about Todd's relationship with Sam Rappaport, and how Sam mentored him and believed in him, and the affect it had on Todd and how it changed him. It would be a shame if we couldn't find sources that support this, either. All these aspects of Todd's character would make this a better article, but only if we can back them up with high-quality and complete sources. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't agree to using YouTube clips; using those is what I'm certain won't pass with the vast majority of WP:FA reviewers, if any, or the vast majority of WP:GA reviewers. As you may know, the "OLTL Todd & Tea 1998: Dinner At The Sun" clip doesn't exist online anymore (well, unless it's on some fansite as a download or something). That scene, however, surely does still exist somewhere on YouTube; if I was more familiar with it, I'd point to it. Regarding the "Todd and Téa: Todd kicks Téa out into the cold" clip... I'm not sure that a clip was ever named that; I think I named it that to cite the episode. Here (or here for a better video quality version), with fans bickering in the comments section, is a YouTube clip of those scenes, but we shouldn't cite the YouTube clip; we should simply cite the episode, and, as you can see, I gave the date for the episode in the article -- One Life to Live (1998-02-04). The scenes support the following line they are used to support: "At one point in the series, Téa is shown to strip down naked in front of Todd and plead for him to make love to her. In response, Todd angrily throws her out into the cold — a rejection more about not being ready for human closeness of this nature again than a genuine rejection of Téa."

As for the "Sam Rappaport and Victoria Lord discuss Peter Manning's likely rape of Todd on Todd's 14th birthday" reference, that should be made into a note. That is plot summary material, though, and, like I noted before in our previous discussions above, plot summary material generally does not need an inline citation. It can't be supported with just one YouTube clip anyway, since it's describing a matter that happened throughout the year. If you want some visual/sound confirmation that this was discussed at any one point in the series, this YouTube clip is visual/sound confirmation; if you skip to 1:35 in the clip, you will reach the beginning of a brief discussion between Sam and Viki where they address Todd possibly having been sexually abused by his adoptive father (Peter Manning). It's stated more explicitly by Viki in this clip when speaking to Sam, starting at 4:14. And from there, combined with this and this clip, Viki addresses Todd, when Todd is the child-like personality, to discuss abuses he suffered at the hands of Peter Manning and ask him where the adult Todd is (if that second clip included all of the material on the matter, you'd also see where Viki tells Téa that she believes that Todd was raped by Peter Manning and that Todd needs her -- Téa -- more than ever; Téa acknowledges that it explains why Todd was never big on sexual intimacy). And for the scenes that started it all with regard to whether or not Todd was raped by Peter Manning, this clip and this clip (right after Todd tries to seduce Téa) are Todd's highly emotional account of what Peter Manning did to him on his 14th birthday, and as a child in general (this is before the split personality storyline begins); everything Todd states in these clips is true, and Sam knows it's true because he witnessed some of the evidence (such as burns on Todd's hands). In these clips, Todd does not state that he was raped, but it is strongly hinted at and Sam outright asks him if he was raped (Todd denies it, but comes close to confirming it). One can also argue (and I think it's been discussed among fans before) that Todd was partly setting up his defense to escape his felony charges in these scenes, since it so wonderfully ties into aspects that he clearly planned to help him escape the prison sentence he was facing at that time.

I didn't use the Dutta source for the libido aspect; I used it for the sexual abuse aspect. The show itself is the source for the "Todd's low libido" aspect; the low libido aspect was a key Todd Manning characteristic for years, starting with the Todd and Téa romance; see the Téa Delgado article for further detail on that. As you've read in the Todd Manning Wikipedia article and in one of the WP:Reliable sources discussing it, Howarth left the show in 1995 because the series was seemingly redeeming Todd and was likely going to romantically pair Todd with Marty. When Howarth returned to the series, there was information out there stating that part of his contract made it so that Todd would not be fully redeemed or romanticized. This seems to have included a "no sex" clause (though this clause obviously didn't last past 2000 if it did exist); I don't know of a WP:Reliable source for that material, though. I think that the child sexual abuse part should stay in the Characteristics section, not the Redeeming Todd section, and this is because it was not used to redeem Todd. The sexual abuse aspect was only used during the 1998 split personality storyline, which was not redemptive at all. And, at the end of that storyline, it was left ambiguous with regard to Todd's answer to Sam when Sam asked him if he was sexually abused; I provided you with a clip of that in the #"Todd's Theme" section discussion above. In that clip, discussion between Todd and Sam about the alleged sexual abuse (rape) begins at 2:22. So if the Dutta source states unequivocally that Todd was raped by Peter Manning, she is taking liberty with the source material. Yes, in the "Todd's Theme" section above, I stated, "the video also begins with what, due to the cryptic answer Todd gives Sam Rappaport about the alleged child sexual abuse aspect of the Todd split personality story, many fans (including me) and soap opera critics believe to be confirmation that Todd was raped by Peter Manning (his adoptive father).," but it's still ambiguous nonetheless.

I don't have the "Todd Finds True Love – With His Wife! (Téa). Daytime Digest. October 1998." and the "Todd and Téa Sleep Together. Soap Opera Weekly. 98-04-07." sources; I got those sources from online, when I was gathering information to create the Téa Delgado article. For example, as this old diff-link at that article shows, I used this online magazine scan for the "L. Sarney, Andrea (1998). The Calm Before The Storm. Soaps In Depth." source. I got some of the sources I used for the Téa Delgado article, scans included, from a Florencia Lozano (Téa Delgado) website (I don't remember if it was her official site or a fansite). That photobucket is mine, though I had not visited it for years until now. The reason that those photobucket links are no loner used for that article is because of WP:COPVIO, similar to this and this matter that happened at the Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery article. I do have the "THE YEAR IN SOAPS! THE BEST OF '98 PLUS PREVIEW '99. Soap Opera Update. 1998" source somewhere in my Todd stash at home; while it supports the "fakes split personalities in order to avoid a life sentence in prison for holding 14 people hostage" and "he had used fake dynamite because he knew he would be able incite fear without the real version" material, I don't think it supports the rest of that paragraph.

Looks like we're going to have to get rid of the table manners material as well, unless we reword that and source it to the show as a note. It's a prominent aspect of Todd's personality, as even addressed in this clip I linked you to in the "Todd's Theme" discussion above, but I'm not aware of a WP:Reliable secondary source supporting it. Googling it earlier this hour, I came across this fan video emphasizing the messy way that Todd usually eats. There is also this fansite I came across in that search, and it documents one of Téa's lines about Todd's table manners: "Téa: (to Todd) May I simply say - you have the worst table manners that I have ever seen and I've eaten in some pretty funky company." It'll be a shame to see the table manners material go, but if it has to be done... As for the rest, I'm not sure what you mean by "high-quality" sources, but we've addressed the type of sources acceptable for fiction, and soap operas in particular. Flyer22 (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You've talked me out of using YouTube clips as references; to that end, I've removed the Carol Swift note. Do you happen to know the air date of that episode? If so, we can add it back in as a source. To that end, you're also right about using individual episodes as sources. For the episodes that you don't have the specific date they aired, perhaps we can ask the person who downloaded the clips if they have the dates. (Darn! I guess I'm gonna have to do research by watching the clips!) ;) I'm so glad that we have your perspective and history as a long-time viewer, because of course you're right about keeping the sexual abuse in the "Characteristics" section and not in the redemption discussion because it had nothing to do with his redemption, something that I wouldn't know if it weren't for your perspective. At any rate, I'll see what we can do with what we have. Finally, what I mean by "high quality sources" are exactly the kind you describe: the best and most complete sources for this topic, which we've discussed all along. Again, thanks for your assistance and expertise. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL, poor you...to have to watch more Todd Manning. I don't know the date the Carol Swift episode in question aired. After the 1993 rape case, the show usually ignored the fact that Todd very likely raped Carol Swift and was a serial rapist; when it came to Todd being a rapist, it was devoted to him having raped Marty, and his being a rapist was treated (though not explicitly stated) as a one-time thing. That's why you see here in this section, I wrote "Malone originally scripted Todd as a serial rapist." And then I noted the Carol Swift bit. Maybe if the series had emphasized the Carol Swift aspect continuously, there would be a lot of clips dating the matter on YouTube. Either way, since we have a source for the Carol Swift bit, we don't need the YouTube clip.

As for Todd being raped and that relating to his redemption, yes, Dutta doesn't use it as a redemption point (or does she?). She argues that the rape in this case created further sympathy for Todd, and I think she's right. Like I noted, it is commonly accepted among viewers and critics of the series that he was raped by Peter Manning, even though that story aspect ended ambiguously and has never been revisited by the series. By the way, mind letting me know what you think of the Todd and Sam scenes I listed above?

Keep in mind to look at some Florencia Lozano websites, and Kassie DePaiva (Blair Cramer) websites, for Todd Manning material; these actresses/characters have been tied to Todd a great deal, and the actresses have commented a lot on Todd's personality, romantic life and children. Also keep in mind that there are some sites we can use to source Todd Manning plot summary material, such as ABC (whether an archived ABC Todd Manning biography or whether his ABC biography still exists). I would suggest the SoapCentral Todd Manning biography, but it's written by fans without any editorial oversight (I think), and they copied from me before; see Talk:Téa Delgado#Soap Opera Central not above copying Wikipedia. Like I told you before (in one of the earlier sections), their news information is usually acceptable as a WP:Reliable source, and they often have exclusive actor or actress interviews. Also, I've been rethinking having a Plot summary section; I started rethinking that not long after we began restructuring the Todd Manning article. And I've been reconsidering it because it's standard practice to have such a section in a fictional character article, and a lot of it actually would not be redundant in Todd's case. But we can discuss that later.

As for my involvement with the restructuring, etc., you're welcome. I have perhaps at times frustrated you a bit, but it's only because I care about the article and we have some different editing styles that we are bringing together to improve this article. Again, I appreciate your perspectives on these matters as well. Oh, and I'm fine with what you've done with the Characteristics section so far. Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: After working on other stuff and general RL busyness for the past three weeks, I ordered the 40th anniversary trivia book from Amazon; it arrived today, and although it's not as helpful as I expected, I'll be able to add a little more content from it. I also found the mentioned clips on YouTube, and wrote messages their owner asking for their air dates over a week ago, but I haven't gotten any response yet. I suspect that I won't, since a week is forever on the internet, which means that we may unfortunately need to remove any and all content that isn't supported by full episode dates. You'll see that I recreated a new paragraph after cutting out what couldn't be supported by refs; I hope it's satisfactory.

Re: the Irene Keene reference: Since 1998 isn't specific enough for a date, I went on a hunt for it. I unfortunately didn't find the specific article, but I found the issue in the Soap Opera World website [10]. I really wish they included page numbers in their descriptions, but I think it could be a good source to fill in missing ref info. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your latest edits: I don't agree with definitively stating that Todd was raped by Peter Manning. Nor do I agree with using SoapCentral to source plot material. Both matters are per what I stated above in this section. The series intentionally left it ambiguous as to whether or not Todd was raped, which we can source by using a note in reference to the 1998 split personality storyline. Regarding this, I'm also sure that Soap Opera Weekly (SOW) source does not support "his rape at the age of fourteen by his adoptive father, Peter Manning." From what I remember, it does not mention that alleged rape; this is why I didn't use it for that matter. And SoapCentral character biographies have been shown to plagiarize Wikipedia soap opera character biographies. Compare their Todd Manning (and Téa Delgado) biography to some of what is in the Téa Delgado Wikipedia biography. At the beginning of our interaction when working on the Todd Manning article, I let you know that SoapCentral was deemed reliable among Wikipedia editors for its news information, but not for its character biography information (which is apparently written by fan volunteers). I can be fine with the child sexual abuse aspect being covered in the Background section in addition to the Characteristics section (like you've done), but I suggest you remove the SoapCentral source for that material, use a note for it instead and change "revealed" to "suggested by the series," and to "suggested" for the second mention. It's storyline material, so we should be able to get by with a note.

As for the Irene Keene reference, yes, it seems that that's the source. I'm looking at the "Scene Stealers" page now, but I only have one page (it appears that it was only a one-page matter) and I don't have the full page; by that, I mean that I cut it out as a clipping and posted it in what is essentially a Todd book; the same goes for some other soap opera magazine entries on Todd. For example, the Todd book also includes pieces of the "THE YEAR IN SOAPS! THE BEST OF '98 PLUS PREVIEW '99. Soap Opera Update. 1998." source without page numbers. Page numbers are there for some of the clippings, but not for others. I can take a picture (one or more) of the different relevant entries, such as the Irene Keene reference, if you want and send it to you via email. I don't have the cover of the Irene Keene reference or the cover for the vast majority of clippings in the Todd book. And the only camera I have these days is my computer camera. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

So (please excuse my denseness) you're saying that we should unequivocally not use Soap Central as a source, never-ever? I'm good with that, for the reasons you state. Sorry about missing that from before; this is getting so complicated, that I need a reminder of what has already been discussed. The problem with putting the sexual abuse in a note, as you suggest, is that it comes from the non-dated episodes. Dutta suggests that the reason the abuse was added to Todd's biography was to make him more sympathetic, which I state in the last paragraph in the "Redeeming Todd" section. Yes, you can send me the Irene Keene ref, and I'll try and re-create it using the Soap Opera World site. Oh, and don't you have a camera on your cell phone? ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Forgot about this before: even though the Dutta source suggests that Todd was sexually abused by his adopted father, I think that the way I've worded it doesn't infer that it was certain, even without using the episodes or the SoapCentral sources. Now that I've thought about it, and have watched the clips in question, I think we should expand on Todd's DID faking. I mean, it was so brilliantly written and acted, and says a lot about his character. (Actually, the brilliant part about it is that as viewers, we're never really sure that he was abused or that he really didn't have DID, especially after the last scenes with Todd and Sam in the airport and with Todd on the plane, talking with himself.) I'll see what I can come up with using the sources at hand. I also wish there was commentary about his relationship with Sam, and how it was just as much a part of his redemption as his romantic relationships. (I loved it how Sam said he wished that he was Todd's father, and that he had done more to help him as a teenager. I remember Kale Browne when he was on AW back back in the day; he's a remarkable actor.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying that we should only use SoapCentral.com for news information and actor biography information, not for plot summary information. The news information, for example, is reliable; the fictional character biographies, which are often written by fan volunteers, are dubious because they are written by fans with no editorial oversight and can be prone to plagiarism. There is no problem with supporting the sexual abuse part in the form of a note, since it would be citing plot summary material; citing specific episodes is not needed to note that the split personality storyline indicated that Todd was raped by Peter Manning. And you can help source that note by backing it to the Dutta source. Your latest edits show that you removed the "raped at 14" part from the Background section, which takes care of my "revealed" complaint, but that the material is still in the Characteristics section and in the Redeeming Todd section. That is somewhat problematic, for the reasons I stated above (such as the Soap Opera Weekly source not mentioning that Todd was raped by Peter Manning, and yet it is currently used to support that claim). To reiterate, I believe that we should not state unequivocally that Todd was raped. As you know, the topic was intentionally left ambiguous by the series (I already pointed you to the video showing that it was -- that airport scene with Todd and Sam), and it has never been revisited by the series. Never. Only used for 1998. Perhaps Dutta is not stating that Todd was definitively raped; maybe she's speaking in terms of when the audience had no reason to doubt that he was raped until it was revealed that he was faking the split personalities or until the end of the split personality storyline (the airport scenes). Or perhaps she missed the ambiguity going along with the rape allegation by not having followed the storyline through to its end. The "raped at 14" allegation was used as an aspect of the split personality storyline to help Todd escape prison time and win Téa back.

Above, I stated "Dutta doesn't use it as a redemption point (or does she?). She argues that the rape in this case created further sympathy for Todd, and I think she's right." Your wording there in the Redeeming Todd section for that material can be taken as Dutta believing that Todd's redemption mostly depended on his having been raped by Peter Manning; if she is indeed stating that, it is incorrect, considering what Todd's redemption truly mostly depended on and considering that the split personality storyline ended up further blackening Todd's name. During the vast majority of that storyline, the audience was in on the fact that Todd was faking split personalities. It was not a redemptive storyline at all; it was a storyline in which Todd used the "raped at 14" allegation to, like I stated, "escape prison time and win Téa back." When every Llanview character found out that Todd was faking, it seriously damaged his relationship with Viki, because Viki had actually suffered from split personalities (dissociative identity disorder) and Todd had now used that disorder and the pain she suffered from it, for his personal gain. See here and here for videos showing exactly that (if you haven't watched those scenes before); this happens during and soon after Todd and Téa's wedding. Todd also lost Téa; she refused to stay married to him, despite his plea for her to continue the marriage, and divorced him in 1999. He'd already left the series in 1998. Since Todd was revealed as having faked his split personalities, and since child sexual abuse is apparently one of the key factors for the onset of dissociative identity disorder, the question as to whether or not Todd was raped by Peter Manning naturally resulted; this is why, at the end of that storyline (the airport scene), the series had Sam outright ask Todd if he was raped by Peter Manning. And, as you know, we didn't get a clear answer on that (after Todd's initial denial to Sam in that scene). So if Dutta credits the alleged rape by Peter Manning as part of Todd's redemption, she is wrong. Above (your "17:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)" post), you agreed that "of course you're right about keeping the sexual abuse in the 'Characteristics' section and not in the redemption discussion because it had nothing to do with his redemption." And looking at the Dutta material again, I don't see where Dutta is arguing that the "raped at 14" allegation was redemptive; instead, it's used as an example of "assuag[ing] the moral qualms associated with a sympathetic rapist" by being one of the "mitigating reasons for Todd's sexual abuse of Marty."

So all that stated, if you want to retain the "raped at 14" Dutta text in the Redeeming Todd section, I can be fine with that, since the text is not citing that aspect as redemptive and since it relates to that section. But I suggest a note there beside it pointing to the fact that, at the end of the split personality storyline, when Sam asks Todd if he was raped, the answer is ambiguous; I might add that. And I object to the wording "and his rape at the age of fourteen by his adoptive father, Peter Manning" that is in the Characteristics section, for reasons I've made well known above. If you insist on similar text being in that section, which, again, should not be cited to the Soap Opera Weekly source, then the words "likely rape" or "alleged rape" should be used (per my above reasoning). There is also no need for WP:INTEXT attribution for the Soap Opera Weekly source. "According to a 1998 edition of Soap Opera Weekly (SOW)", for example, is unnecessary unless the text being included is contentious or WP:Undue weight. Stating "one defining characteristic of Todd's personality is his resistance to sexual intimacy and close relationships, which is due to his horrific past misdeeds, including his rape of Marty, his relationship with his wife Blair, and his likely rape at the age of fourteen by his adoptive father, Peter Manning" is not contentious or WP:Undue weight. Notice that I used "likely" in that line. The line also needs tweaking because the "rape at the age of fourteen by [Todd's] adoptive father" is not a part of Todd's "horrific past misdeeds."

Indeed, part of the brilliance of the split personality storyline is the question as to whether or not Todd was actually raped (though, like I've stated before, it has become widely accepted in the soap opera community that Todd was indeed raped by Peter Manning)...and if he was 100% faking his split personalities. The reason I stated "100%" is because the storyline and viewers generally accept that Todd was faking; two exceptions are when Viki suggests to Sam that maybe the split personalities weren't completely fake, and when that statement by Viki is preceded (or is followed, I'm not sure) by Todd imagining those split personalities on the plane departing from Llanview. Before he is on the plane imagining them, Viki suggests to him that they are all a valid part of him (which likely contributed to him imagining the personalities on the plane); that exchange is seen in this Todd-hurt-Viki-severely clip I pointed to above in the second paragraph of this post (the comments section for that clip shows how deeply affected people were by the Todd and Téa romance and the split personalities storyline). There are a lot of soap opera sources that commented on Todd faking his split personalities. For example, Roger Howarth won a 1998 Soap Opera Digest Award for Outstanding Villain, and the split personalities storyline is mentioned in the "THE YEAR IN SOAPS! THE BEST OF '98 PLUS PREVIEW '99. Soap Opera Update." source. I don't have the page numbers, but in its Biggest surprise section, it states: "OLTL's highlight in 1998 was the mystery of who killed Georgie. This one event sparked several engrossing storylines, including Todd faking his multiple personalities." Its listed in that section because the split personalities aspect starts off as something that Todd validly has. There's a quote there from Erika Page (who portrayed Roseanne Delgado); she stated, "I think Todd and his faking the multiple personalities was the biggest surprise for the audience. It's been really fun to watch that story." And there are reliable sources out there about the impact Sam has on Todd's life, though likely not with regard to his redemption. Also keep in mind that Todd was never fully redeemed. As for emailing you: Given this issue, how should we go about it? And I don't have a cell phone. Never had one (yes, shocking, I know). I'll likely have one at some point. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant to deal with the Dutta ref in the "Characteristics" section; it has been removed now. I see now that the way I worded it makes it seem that the SOW mentioned the abuse, which as you state, is wrong, so I agree that it should be removed. I also agree with you about SoapCentral; the draft currently doesn't use it at all, and we'll see about its suitability for what we've haven't improved yet when we get to it. The problem with using the clips you mention, as cool as they are, is that they don't include the episode dates, so as we've already discussed, shouldn't be used. (I'm sure that the commentary we want has been discussed in the soap mags. If they had archive capabilities on their websites, it's make our lives so much easier. I'm sure they don't because they don't have the resources for it, which is unfortunate.) At any rate, I think we've settled the sexual abuse issue. If the problem with email is Yahoo as your talk page states, I suggest that you use gmail! ;) Seriously, in order to get the Update article to me, perhaps we need to use another platform. I'm almost afraid to ask: are you on Facebook? You could take a picture of the article and post it there? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I still feel that something about the alleged sexual abuse with regard to his sexual intimacy issues needs to be there, though. As for the clips, we agreed not to use YouTube clips as sources for the Todd Manning article, so I have no problem there. I was referring to a note purely concerning plot material regarding the show having indicated that Todd was raped by Peter Manning; that's acceptable because it's just a note about a plot point (the show is the source). As for email, since I use Yahoo and don't want to sign up to another email system (I don't like Gmail), will you simply email me? That is, if you don't also have Yahoo. And then I can email you back. I'm on Facebook, but I don't reveal my real-life identity to Wikipedians. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Further comments on the Soap Opera Weekly source, in the DID subsection, below; it's currently miscited in the Todd sandbox, which needs to be fixed. Flyer22 (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

DID and other stuff

Resolved comments

I just found something from the Waggett book; see here [11] He agrees with you--that Todd was never sexually abused by Peter Manning. He also says that Todd was faking his D.I.D., and that it "devastated" Viki. I'm going to come up with something (perhaps in a note) that mentions his disagreement with Dutta, and use this source more effectively. I think I'll wait until I can put eyes on the Update source, though, if that's possible. (BTW, I started this subsection because things were getting too long and complicated above.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan, I never stated that I don't think that Todd was raped by Peter Manning. I've been clear above, before our discussion in the Characteristics section, that I'm certain that Todd was raped by Peter Manning; I'm certain because of what was stated in the cabana scenes between Todd and Sam (for example, something having had to be different the night of the alleged rape to make Todd lose control and try to kill Peter Manning; like Sam notes in those scenes, Peter Manning had physically and verbally abused Todd that night in the same way he'd physically and verbally abused Todd times before, so something different had to have happened that night to make Todd try to kill him) and I'm sure because of the ambiguity of the airport scene between Todd and Sam. Keep in mind that because Todd saw how much it was paining Sam to think that he had actually been raped, Todd stated that he made the whole thing up (including the rape). But when Sam pressed, Todd responded ambiguously; he had no reason to be ambiguous about it. Why not try harder to convince Sam that he was not raped? Why break down in tears the way that he did before they departed? Todd does not cry easily, not even when it's someone he cares about. There's also the question as to how could Todd have possibly known that, while in that cabana with Téa, Sam would show up and then press him about the night of his 14th birthday (the night of the alleged rape); so either Todd was completely blind-sided by Sam pressing him about the rape aspect, or, though initially blind-sided, Todd caught on fast that he could manipulate Sam into thinking that he was raped or that he could simply push Sam in that direction even if it meant revisiting the rape with Sam. Those scenes (the cabana ones and the airport scenes) are what convinced many viewers that Todd was raped by Peter Manning. For the Todd Manning Wikipedia article, I've simply objected to us definitively stating that Todd was raped; this is because I believe that we should be true to the storyline, and, to reiterate one last time, the storyline left that aspect ambiguous. So, yes, the Waggett view is a good counterbalance. But you've only added it in as a note, and its commentary on the fans can lead one to believe that the majority of One Life to Live fans don't believe Todd was raped. If you were to discuss the alleged rape with One Life to Live fans other than me, or see them commenting on the matter on soap opera message boards or on YouTube, you will see that the majority seemingly do believe that Todd was raped. I saw similarly in soap opera magazines; this is why I told you above "it has become widely accepted in the soap opera community that Todd was indeed raped by Peter Manning." Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

And, LOL, clicking on that Waggett source, I see that you Googled "Miss Perkins." Flyer22 (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, it's the Keene Soap Opera Weekly source we were discussing on getting you access to. So you want parts of the Soap Opera Update source as well? Flyer22 (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

When making this, this and this tweak to the Todd sandbox, I realized that you used the wrong source for the intimacy text; if you look in the Todd Manning article, you will see that the source used for that material is the "Todd Finds True Love – With His Wife! (Téa). Daytime Digest. October 1998." source. The "Todd and Téa Sleep Together. Soap Opera Weekly. 98-04-07." source is about the nightmare aspect; it's referring to this exchange between Todd and Téa, where they literally sleep together (as in "not have sex; just sleep") after they significantly open up to each other by revealing dark parts of their pasts. It's a scene showing that because Téa is there in the room with him, has talked with him about these dark aspects, Todd is finally able to go to sleep after days of having not been able to. Another aspect of his personality is that he barely sleeps, which is an aspect Todd notes in the clip before that one. That stated, the "Todd Finds True Love – With His Wife! (Téa). Daytime Digest. October 1998." source is also used in the Todd Manning article to source one part of the nightmare aspect -- that Todd opens up to Téa about his nightmares. I've also been considering whether or not we should have a Romantic relationships section in the Todd Manning article, but then I think about the fact those aspects are addressed in some portions of the Creation and development section already...because it's important that they are placed there...and that perhaps extensive detail on the Todd and Blair relationship is something best left to the Todd Manning and Blair Cramer article while the extensive detail on the Todd and Téa relationship is best left to the Téa Delgado article. This is especially the case for the Téa Delgado article since the vast majority of her character history, significantly more than Blair's character history, is centered on Todd. And the main romantic relationships of Todd's life have been his relationships with Blair and Téa anyway (well, after his relationship with Rebecca, which aided the beginning of his redemption; and we of course already have the article detailing his relationship with Rebecca).

Going back to the email topic: Since this latest email I received, which is not from a Yahoo account, made it to me, it seems that your email would also make it to me if it's not from a Yahoo account. Flyer22 (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, as seen here, here and here, I made more tweaks to the Characteristics section. Todd's sexual intimacy issues are more of a past matter than a present matter; by the time he had sex with Téa on the deserted island, he wasn't hung up on not having sex. And he'd already been sexually intimate with Blair again during 2000-2002, without any sexual hangup problem (though during that time, Blair did make a couple of references to Todd not being much of a sexual person). And as you can see regarding his sexual interaction with Carly Corinthos, the "Todd has sexual intimacy issues" aspect was not a factor (though, yes, there are different writers there at General Hospital; and I'm not sure to what degree they read up on Todd, or to what degree the One Life to Live writers were involved with helping transition Todd to that series). It's like the writers mostly dropped that issue by 2002, so I made the reference to it a past tense matter, similar to how it currently is in the Todd Manning article. Also, don't forget that the sexual intimacy issues part is currently supported by the wrong source in the Todd sandbox; I didn't go ahead and trade the sources because, besides often being lazy, I know that you format the references a bit differently than I do. Another thing to consider adding with regard to Todd's resistance to close relationships is how that somewhat changed when his daughter, Starr, came into his life; it's often stated within the One Life to Live series that Starr changed Todd in a number of ways, mainly by opening him back up emotionally after he'd closed that part of himself off when catching Blair having sex with Patrick. Starr is often cited as having restored Todd's humanity. See how he describes her impact on him in this clip (starting at 3:25); there are soap opera sources that mention that impact. And Todd's always been good at interacting with children, a contrast to and reflection of him not wanting to be the same person as his adoptive father.

Thanks for emailing me so that I can email you back. However, like I told you in the email, "Before I begin sending you more clippings of Todd sources, take a look at this one (the Keene source) I've included with this email; I was going to send you close-ups and other angles of this source, but it photographs backwards; I didn't think of that before proposing to take pictures of the sources. I tried to flip the image, but it doesn't flip to a readable option. So what is the solution?" To clarify, I tried flipping the image to a readable position with the Windows image viewer option, just to see if it was possible. So maybe the image can be flipped to a readable position by using a powerful tool, such as Photoshop or GIMP? I have GIMP, but I don't have Photoshop.

On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "and other stuff" to better reflect what this section is about. Flyer22 (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Fly, I received your email and have responded. As I stated, I don't care about the images, just the content, and do you have a scanner? If so, that may be the solution: you can scan the articles, download the scans onto your computer, and then send the files to me. I don't have either GIMP or Photoshop, so if you can "fix" the problem with GIMP, that would be great. The last resort, I suppose, is the old-school method: xerox and send through snail mail. I can pay for the postage if we go that route.

Now I'll go through my responses/reactions in order. As per your request, I removed the SoapCentral, and as you note, put it in a note. I did that because it really was ambiguous. Remember, though, that the fan community's feelings about whether or not Todd was raped by his father (and anything else, for that matter) doesn't belong here, unless we can support it. By the same token, if we don't have a source for the commentary about it in the press, we can't mention it, either. I'm glad for your perspective, though; it informs how to present the information from the sources that are available and prevent the kind of judgment errors I've been making. (BTW, I wanted you to see the Waggett content, so I searched for "Miss Perkins" to make sure it came up in the URL. ;) )

Also as per your request, I fixed the incorrect sourcing. I like the tweaks you made, which demonstrates two themes we're dealing with in the improvement of this article: 1) the importance of your perspective as described above; and 2) the importance of me having eyes on the sources, which is why I've asked you to send them to me. See, my assumption, by the silly title, was that Todd and Tea actually had sex, something I wouldn't realize was wrong if you didn't tell me. Hey, I just thought of something: you said earlier that you have "a Todd book", which I assume is a scrapbook of articles about him from the soap mags. Would you be willing to part with it, at least for a short while? I promise that I would take excellent care of it, and send it back to you when I was done with it. Another option is for you to xerox it and send me copies. What do you think about that? I'm not sure how much we'd be able to use; if there are no dates, we wouldn't be able to use them, but I may be able to hunt them down.

Re: the sexual intimacy part of things: I was going to ask you about that, since it was obvious, by his time on GH, that he had gotten over his problems. Of course, only knowing him from GH, I wondered how the heck he could've gone from Carly (Howarth and Laura Wright have great chemistry, even with him playing Franco) back to Blair, with nary a mention of Carly on the TOLN version of OLTL, and then I saw him with Blair and I understood. But again, since we don't have any sources that discuss it, we can't include it here, although what you've done to solve it is good. Perhaps we should create a "wishlist" when we're done: aspects that we wish we could discuss but can't without the sources. I also agree with you about not having a "Relationships" section in this article; for one thing, there may not be enough information, and secondly, you're right that his romantic relationships are addressed throughout the article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I know I told you this via email, but: I'll get back to you about the GIMP aspect. I don't have a scanner or a xerox machine. I am fine briefly parting with my Todd book, which is childish-looking (LOL); but also, like I told you, I prefer being anonymous with regard to editors knowing me on Wikipedia. The mailing route would reveal my real-life identity. As for sourcing, I don't need a reminder that we shouldn't add any text to the article that can't be supported by WP:Reliable sources (including the show itself). Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

How about this idea: You could go to Kinko's to scan it and then download it on a webpage or Google docs, which I realize could be expensive but I'd be willing to reimburse you some way, although sending you a check would mess up with your desire to remain anonymous. I could also promise to keep your mailing route anonymous; you'd have to risk trusting that I'm honest. I sympathize with and respect your desire to remain anonymous, really I do. If it's too much of an obstacle, we'll have to do without. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, my apologies for falling behind; as always, RL and other WP stuff has gotten in the way. I've worked on the last part about of the Howarth section (about the parrots), and since I only have a couple things to say, I thought that I'd put it here. I'm having trouble finding more complete information about the "Amazing Tails" episode, although I did find this [12], which is probably the correct listing for the episode. Speaking of the parrot paragraphs, I deleted some of the content about the parrots' acting process, since this article is about Howarth's process. I also copy-edited and restructured it a bit, which resulted in a tighter, shorter paragraph. I hope it's okay. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your parrots edit, I think the bit about how the parrots could distinguish the real world from the acting environment should be kept, since that's apparently a core aspect that helped them interact with Howarth and other actors. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll work on improving the wording, and see what I can do. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Over the years, I've also had difficulty finding an online source to support the Amazing Tails episode, other than this fansite source that has screenshots of that episode (it's where I got the screenshot of Howarth with the parrots that is currently in the Todd Manning article). A clip of the entire Howarth Amazing Tails piece used to be on YouTube (that's how I saw the episode), but, as you may have noticed, it's no longer there. Flyer22 (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, above if you meant that you fixed the intimacy issues sourcing, it was actually me who fixed it; seen here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Speaking below of the Reception and impact section, I just reread parts of this source that is currently used for the third paragraph of the Reception and impact section in the Todd Manning article; it somewhat acknowledges fans' questions regarding whether or not Todd was fully faking his split personalities; it states, "The last time viewers saw Todd on OLTL was on a plane heading out of Llanview. His character left the show after it was revealed to everyone that Todd had been faking his DID (dissociative identity disorder), but had he really? The very last scene viewers saw with Todd, was showing him still 'acting' out his split personalities while no one was around. So why would he need to continue to act this way, if in fact, he had been faking his disorder? This is a question, many viewers are hoping to get the answers to during the week Todd is back." The source is a bit "off" on that matter, though, since Todd was hallucinating the split personalities while on the plane, not literally acting them out. But then again, the source having "acting" in quotation marks (scare quotes) might be a way of indicating that, not simply to hint at the alters having been real in that moment. Yet again, the source states "act" without quotation marks. Flyer22 (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

St. John section

Resolved comments

Hi, back again after finishing off some other RL and WP projects that seemed to crowd out efforts here. Working on this article has been my reward for accomplishing everything else, but I'd like to move forward and make improving it more of a priority. My goal is to submit the article to WP:PR by the end of the summer, and bring it to FAC shortly afterwards.

• 1st paragraph: The sources don't actually support these statements. For example, the first ref ("OLTL's canvas is growing) doesn't state that St. John was a Todd recast; it states that he was cast as Walker. The 2nd ref (TV Guide "Soaps News") just speculates that Walker was really Todd, not that it was "determined". Finally, the 3rd ref doesn't definitively state one way or the other, but just gives some teases. The last two sentences in this paragraph aren't even supported. The statements in this paragraph are easily supported, once we find appropriate sources, and/or can be rewritten to reflect the current sources. I'll work on that shortly.

• There are similar issues with the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. Many of the statements are unsourced, and the ABC.com ref is broken. I'm tempted to "scrap" all the info already presented about St. John's initial casting, look for some sources, and re-write the beginning paragraphs, or at least search for sources that support the statements already there. I'll work on that shortly as well. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the first paragraph. But I don't see it as a significant issue, since the fact that St. John was cast as Todd, besides being an obvious matter, is supported by other sources in the section. All that is needed regarding that sourcing matter is to move one of the sources, such as the "Branco, Nelson (2009-01-07). 'Sexy Beast'. TV Guide." source, to that first sentence. As for the "however, it was not yet determined the character he was portraying was Todd until August of that year" wording, I sourced that to Delaina Dixon because St. John states in that source: "You'll know definitively on Aug. 26, so keep watching." And then there's these sentences: "In May 2011, with Howarth's return as the character, St. John's version was rewritten as Todd's identical twin brother, Victor Lord, Jr., instead. The series documented Victor being conditioned to believe he was Todd and to assume Todd's identity." Those sentences are partly sourced in the lead of the article and in the Recast subsection of the Reception and impact section, and are about a storyline point that is easily sourced to the show itself.

As for the second and third paragraphs, I don't see any problem, except for the WP:Editorializing statement "Wanting to immediately address the question" that is in the second paragraph and the dead link ABC source that is used for the third paragraph. The archived version of that ABC source is found here. The second paragraph is completely supported by its sources; it relies mostly on the Delaina Dixon source. If you have a problem with the "throughout the soap opera community" wording that is used there in the second paragraph and feel that it should simply be "in the soap opera community," or if you have a problem with the "TV Guide soon realized the matter" wording and feel that it should simply be "TV Guide realized the matter," those are easily fixable.

I'm fine with you rewriting these paragraphs as long as you retain the important information that's in them. On a side note: Something I've been meaning to add to the beginning of that section is that Michael Easton was considered for the role of Todd Manning, before St. John was considered for the part, which is hinted at in this source used for the second paragraph in the St. John section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with everything you've said. I promise to be faithful to the sources we already have, plus whatever I can find. I agree that there's a lot of editorializing, which is easily fixed. Give me some time to work with it and see what I can come up with. I had also read that Easton had been considered for Todd, and thought about adding it as well. Off topic, kind of: I luv Michael Easton. I remember him on Days for the two years in the early 90s, and of course on the epic fail that was Port Charles, and now on GH. I love it that he was John McBain on GH, and that he now plays the sibling of the character he played on PC, and his smokin' hot chemistry with Kelly Monaco. Ah, those eyes; those pouty lips; that hair which he flips all the time. But excuse the digression; I'll try and get to more improving tomorrow. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't state that there is a lot of WP:Editorializing in the section, but I trust that you'll make the section better. And, LOL, no apology needed for the digression; I've seen other women state similarly about Easton and his Port Charles love story with Monaco (as Caleb Morley and Livvie Locke; Wikipedia articles are needed for those characters, by the way). Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding what you've written so far on the St. John portrayal, I'm going to go ahead and state that I think Malone saying that "a committee" was involved in recasting Todd, his saying that everyone agreed that St. John was Todd and that it's rare to find that kind of unanimous agreement about a recast, should be kept. I think that the way St. John initially portrayed Walker, the character's motive for taking on that identity (especially since we don't have a Storylines section in the Todd sandbox to explain that...yet), how his portrayal of Walker was used to indicate that he was Todd, as well as the Delaina Dixon interview on the topic, should also be kept in the section. I see that you've used two sources that are used for the Reception and impact section regarding St. John's portrayal; I'm sure it comes as no surprise, but I think that the reception material, if you planned on adding any of that to the St. John section, should be kept in the Reception and impact section. Flyer22 (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your second paragraph, I'm sure that what Waggett means is that, like the Reception and impact section makes clear, the writers integrated St. John into the show partly by making Walker exhibit Todd-like behavior and therefore making him very acceptable to the audience (such as when it came to pairing Walker with Blair). It was not until Walker started acting like Todd that many viewers fully embraced Walker. So Waggett's view does not contrast what critics state on the matter; therefore, the "Although" contrast is not needed. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep the above two paragraphs in mind, but I'm still in the drafting/development stages. I'll let you know when I think I'm finished, before moving it over to the Todd sandbox. Then we can talk some more, 'cause I'll probably change what I've already done. It's slow-going, but I'll keep at it and won't let anything get in it way, unless another of my subjects die or something. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think of it, and connected to your question about Waggett, I have a few questions for you, Madame all-things-OLTL-expert: Do you think that St. John was an intentional Todd re-cast? Waggett seems to think that it wasn't--that St. John was brought on as Walker, and when he proved popular, they decided to make him into Todd. When St. John was hired, did he know that he was a re-cast? By the same token, did the writers know? The "Sexy Beast" article seems to state that the producers knew, which I can't know for sure without putting eyes on it, and if so, that means that everyone was trying really hard to keep it from the fans and the press. When was St. John brought into the "deception"? I dunno if it matters, or if it belongs in the article; I'm just curious. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I tweaked this part of your draft for the reasons stated in that edit summary. It's St. John who stated that he did not know that he was being considered for Todd; that's why I have it worded that way in the article. I still don't like the Waggett wording that you have in the draft; it's still of a contrast nature, as though Waggett is of a contrary belief, except now the word "but" is used instead of "although." And I course dislike critical commentary being covered in that section. I don't agree that critical commentary should be in the Casting and portrayals section, especially since there should be something to state about St. John's portrayal in the Reception and impact section, and the recast aspects are a big part of the reception to his portrayal. The reception bit you have there is also a little redundant to what is already stated there about viewers suspecting that St. John was Todd. As you know, I'm always open to you changing the wording of things (usually anyway). But when it comes to the structure of the St. John section, I prefer that it goes with the following order or something very similar: St. John was cast as Todd after Howarth departed the role. Easton was offered the role. St. John initially took the role of Walker Laurence (backstory behind "Todd" pretending to be Walker); his portrayal of Walker, which showcased Todd-like behavior, created suspicion as to if Walker was really Todd. St. John was revealed to be Todd, "reinvented" as Todd with plastic surgery, after the audience had accepted him as Walker and were settled/comfortable with the idea of him being Todd. Malone explains the process of casting St. John as Todd and what he and "the committee" felt during St. John's audition. St. John explains his audition. That's more of an orderly fashion to me, and it's very similar to what I currently have in the article. And the rest of the section obviously follows that.

As for St. John being an intentional recast, that's uncertain, though Malone makes it sound like he was intentionally cast as Todd. To me, it sounds like they tested the waters to see if the audience would accept St. John as Todd, and then they made him Todd. Again, what Waggett states on that matter is the same or similar to what other critics state -- St. John was slowly worked into the series, slowly revealed to be Todd and then definitively revealed to be Todd once the audience had accepted him/gotten used to the idea of him being Todd. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so now that I'm completed my "draft" version, let's continue here; I'll wait until we resolve some things before moving it over to the Todd sandbox. The reason I had written the Waggett stuff that way was because he seems to infer that St. John had been cast as Walker, and when he proved popular with the audience and worked out in the cast, they recast him as Todd, although he's not really clear about exactly how it happened. All the other sources, especially Malone, are clearer and state that the writers considered St. John as a recast from the very beginning (although it's not as clear if St. John knew that he had really been cast as Todd from the very beginning), and then when he was popular and worked out, they moved him in as Todd. I think that the current draft version reflects this. It could still use some more tweaking, I'm sure, so feel free. (I'll have more later today; gotta go meet the kids for their swim lessons now.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Most of the changes I made were structural. I looked at the original sources (where possible) and organized them thematically and chronologically. I also paraphrased a lot because I thought the section depended too much on direct quotes. I don't think it currently gets into Reception and impact, but we can talk about it and move the content as necessary. Also let me know if we should go ahead and move the content to the Todd sandbox. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

As you know, on July 1, I stated, "WP:Dummy edit: I'll read and reply tomorrow, Figureskatingfan. And will try to be more consistent in the timing of my replies (replying sooner than later)." I held off on replying soon after you stated, "clarifications to avoid WP:Dummy edit; no hurries Flyer22, I had other stuff to do as I've seen has been true for you." So, yeah, we've taken a significant amount of time off from improving the Todd Manning article. From this edit you made hours ago, it seems that you are ready to get back to it. So here I am. Since you want this article ready for a WP:Featured article review by the end of July, we are in a bit of a hurry, though, aren't we? Or "by the end of the summer," do you mean somewhere in August?

Looking at the current state of the St. John section in your sandbox, I'm pretty much fine with your version (though I have the same objection as before and I note that in my fourth paragraph below). You tweaked the Waggett matter appropriately, and I thank you for that. You stated, "All the other sources, especially Malone, are clearer and state that the writers considered St. John as a recast from the very beginning (although it's not as clear if St. John knew that he had really been cast as Todd from the very beginning)." That's not exactly correct, though, which is why you asked me at the beginning of this section (your "22:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)" post) about it, and is why I responded the way that I did. Malone seems clear that St. John was an intentional recast, but other sources speaking of St. John as a Todd recast don't give that same indication, except for when speaking of the fact that St. John's character eventually started exhibiting Todd-like behavior, and I don't see how what Malone stated conflicts with what Wagget stated.

For one, we know that Michael Easton was considered for the role, which means that St. John was not considered for the role from the very beginning. St. John stated that he did not know that he was being considered for the role of Todd during his audition. And we know that it took time for St. John to be revealed as Todd on the series. This is why I relayed, "Again, what Waggett states on that matter is the same or similar to what other critics state -- St. John was slowly worked into the series, slowly revealed to be Todd and then definitively revealed to be Todd once the audience had accepted him/gotten used to the idea of him being Todd." You stated, "Waggett... ...seems to infer that St. John had been cast as Walker, and when he proved popular with the audience and worked out in the cast, they recast him as Todd, although he's not really clear about exactly how it happened." Well, yes, St. John was cast as Walker. It's not like he was pretending to be portraying Walker. Walker became popular because the audience liked his chemistry with other characters (especially with Blair and Starr) and grew to accept the likelihood that he is Todd; then he was revealed as Todd -- cast as Todd. This is regardless of Malone and company having decided that he is a good Todd candidate. Notice that Malone states that he and "the committee" decided that St. John is Todd; they didn't state that he was automatically cast as Todd, especially since he clearly portrayed Walker first -- was on-contract as Walker (unless his contract noted that he would eventually be revealed as Todd, and that was something St. John didn't know until he read his contract). All of this is why, "To me, it sounds like they tested the waters to see if the audience would accept St. John as Todd, and then they made him Todd."

Per what I stated above, I disagree with the following passages being in the section: "Soap Opera Digest stated, 'As more people learned of Walker's identity, St. John let glimmers of Todd shine through'. The audience had already suspected it, but it was confirmed during a scene between St. John and Kristin Alderson, who played Todd's daughter Starr, which Soap Opera Weekly called 'one of those great (and, these days, rare) must-see moments'." To me that is better left in the Reception and impact section, especially the "which Soap Opera Weekly called 'one of those great (and, these days, rare) must-see moments" part. And, like I mentioned above, the part about the audience having already suspected that St. John's character is Todd is already noted earlier on in your St. John section draft. So other than those passages, I agree to go ahead and transport your draft to the Todd sandbox (there are some reference issues that need to be fixed first in your sandbox, however -- reference 3 and 16). Flyer22 (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Fly, I'm sure you've missed me as much as I've missed you. I suppose what I meant by submitting it to FAC by the end of the summer to be the end of August, about the time that school gets back. Of course, that's barring anything catastrophic, like the subjects of my WP topics dying again. Yikes! Anyway, it's a soft deadline, my friend. I suspected that the one edit was I able to make today would get your attention! ;)

I'm pretty sure that I understand what you're getting at. I removed the TV Guide quote as per your request, even though I'm not sure I agree. I'm fine with following your suggestion for now; we can revisit it when we get to the Reception section. I'm not sure if all you say above means that you agree with my revision. Re: Waggett: he says, on page 36, "The show introduced Trevor St. John as Walker Laurence, younger brother to the villainous Mitch Laurence (Roscoe Born). As St. John caught on with the fans, the writers and producers realized that he would make a great Todd, so Walker was reinvented as Todd with plastic surgery." My interpretation of these statements is that they cast St. John as Walker, and then they decided to reinvent him as Todd when St. John proved popular with the fans. That's different than what others have stated, which is that St. John was cast as Todd from the very beginning, and that they used the Walker storyline to introduce him to the audience and to, as you say, test his chemistry with his fellow castmembers. If you disagree, please change it.

I'll go ahead and put the draft version in the Todd sandbox, and let you tweak as you like. I'll try and devote more time to this article in the next few days. (But not tomorrow, 'cause I'm going out of town for the day with the hubby to escape the oppressive heat, even if it is by travelling in an air-conditioned car and spending time in AC-ed meetings and malls.) I think that the reference issues will resolve themselves, but I'll make sure once I move it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason that I agreed with your latest Waggett version is because you changed it from explicitly conflicting with the other sources (as noted above, previously you had used text that made it seem as though the sources explicitly disagree with each other). I don't have anything else to state on the recasting matter that wouldn't be redundant to what I stated above. But, per your latest comment (your "03:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)" comment), even though I don't see the casting matter that way (for example, as noted above, I pointed out that Malone does not state that St. John was immediately cast as Todd, but rather that he and the committee agreed that he was Todd; St. John was cast as Walker and portrayed Walker), I better understand where you coming from on that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think that both are true: St. John was cast as Walker, with the caveat that he might be the Todd recast, depending on viewer response and cast interaction. What's unclear is if that was clear to St. John when he won the part. He strikes me as a smart guy, so he probably knew but didn't disclose it to the press or to fans. Are we agreed on the current wording, though? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what I was essentially stating is that "St. John was cast as Walker, with the caveat that he might be the Todd recast, depending on viewer response and cast interaction." That's why I was stating that I don't see the sources conflicting each other on the aforementioned St. John casting matter. Like I noted above, St. John stated that he didn't know that he was being considered for the role of Todd during his audition. But it's likely that he found out soon afterward; he definitely knew before Walker started to display Todd-like behavior. And, yes, I've agreed above with your current wording on the casting information. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Reception and impact

Resolved comments

I'm finally back to work on this article; see below for issues as they arise.

General

• I put a source (Branco "Sexy Beast") in the middle of the 2nd sentence here because I think it's an important enough assertion to warrant one.

• The sources for the Emmys don't actually support all the statements, so I restructured them to ensure that they do. I also added the Emmys of all the "principles" involved because I think it gives more background. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• The only source that supports the "iconic" assertion is the SOD source. I was curious, so I searched for sources that state it, and found only a bunch of blog posts. I found similar sentiments on Michael Fairman's site, and added it; please let me know what you think. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• 2nd paragraph: I'm changing the prose to better reflect the sources. For example, Hayward never talks about the reaction of adult males; instead she talks about the reaction of one male member of the OLTL fan community (p. 181). The SOD source has been cited incorrectly; the statement about the 7-year-old being Todd's fan is from one of the quotes at the bottom of the page and is discussed later in this article's section. Since I can't take a look at the other sources, I think that I should start from scratch and talk about the "Rape me, Todd" controversy as described by sources I have access to, and to make similar statements about Howarth's popularity as Todd. I also don't like how the first sentence is worded. Plus, there's information about how Todd's popularity impacted Howarth's life and how much of the fan response to the rape storyline disturbed him later on. I also removed the content in this paragraph about the interviews, as per WP:INFO. I mean, Howarth's had other interviews, so this isn't the place to describe all of them. The interviews aren't accessible anymore, and they don't add anything significant, so I think they shouldn't be included. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with your tweaks to the first paragraph. But I somewhat disagree with your removals to the second paragraph. Your first line states that Todd's popularity disturbed Howarth; I was going to state that there is no proof of that being the case, and that what disturbed Howarth is women being attracted to Todd as a rapist, one woman (or women) in particular screaming "Rape me, Todd!", the fact that there were children as young as seven years old watching Todd and loving the character, and eventually that the writers began redeeming Todd. But this The Hollywood Reporter source (page 28) states: "In interviews with the soap press, Howarth said he was troubled that his villainous character became such a fan favorite." That source also notes that Howarth became the most star on One Life to Live. Before the "troubled that his villainous character became such a fan favorite" line, it states, "Although his character was a convicted rapist, Howarth turned into the most popular star on the program." For visual proof that the source states these things, you can look at this link. The "Adult male fans spoke of the excitement Todd brought to the show." line was not meant to be cited to Hayward, or at least wasn't meant to be cited to Hayward alone, so I'm unsure as to how that became the ultimate outcome. I don't see how the Soap Opera Digest source (which is both the "Sloane Gaylin, Alison (1995-10-24). 'Roger and Out'. Soap Opera Digest." source and an online source) was cited incorrectly; it was cited to the "and young boys and girls enjoyed the character as well" text; this is consistent with the source, where Howarth states (as shown in the Rape and redemption section): "People have come up to me and said, 'My 7-year-old loves you.' What do I say to that? I'm not going to tell them, 'Don't let your 7-year-old watch TV.' But I have to say, it's disturbing." That line is not about one 7-year-old (unless Howarth means an adult couple speaking of their child), but kids in general, which is why it's plural. It is also sourced to the "Todd mania. Soap Opera Digest. 1995." reference, which I don't have the complete citation for; this is another source that I received via email from a fan when fixing up the Todd Manning article.

Furthermore, I think that the interviews I had there should be included, but summarized (such as "Howarth appeared on talk shows, including [so and so]."); though American soap operas were a lot more popular back then than they are now, it was not everyday or all that common that a soap opera star was invited to talk shows in the way that Howarth was invited to them; his being invited to those shows was an extension of his popularity, and I like where Regis Philbin specifically states, "This guy is hot! More mail than any other soap star going....he's a terrible villain, who's become a heartthrob to thousands of wildly adoring fans." That, and his Daytime Emmy win, is why he got invited to that show. It also summarizes his talk show popularity. What I had there is not a violation of WP:INFO, which is about infoboxes, so I'm not sure what you mean on that. But, again, I'd be fine with significant reduction in the way of summarizing. Of course the General section, which is there to summarize the general aspects of Todd's reception and impact, is going to touch on a few things that are discussed in the lower reception sections. For example, it seems important to me to briefly acknowledge in that section that Todd impacted young kids, and to leave it to the Rape and redemption section for Howarth's criticism regarding young kids watching his character, criticism that he seemingly cites as an additional reason for departing the show in 1995. I look forward to what else you may add to the General section, but I would rather that the vast majority of the controversy regarding the rape material stay in the Rape and redemption section. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm going to start over and using all the sources, re-write the 1st 3 paragraph in this section in my sandbox. Give me a few days before you chime in, let me work, and then I'll tell you when I'm ready to discuss. Thanks for the clarification you provide above, especially quoting the Hollywood Reporter one. I'll use your interview info, I promise. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: Regarding this, I was about to reply: No, I don't. I came across that source months ago and intended to mention it when we got to the Reception and impact section. I also intended to mention something about what Waggett stated from the One Life to Live Waggett book you are already using for the Todd Manning article (and which I've used for it); I came across something regarding Waggett at about the same time I did regarding the The Hollywood Reporter piece. But I lost my two little notes on those matters, and I don't remember what I was going to relay about the Waggett source...other than the fact that it has to do with Todd's popularity. So then I went searching online to find that The Hollywood Reporter piece again. I don't see why you think we can't use it as a source. We can use the bibliographic information provided for it on Google Books and the page number. And though that snippet doesn't show the text in question, the URL I provided you with above for visual proof clearly shows that the text in question is on that page (page 28). The snippet I originally had shows a bit of the "most popular star on the program" text. Perhaps, with a different wording, you can find that snippet. I used multiple different phrases just to find the The Hollywood Reporter piece again. Flyer22 (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Starting over, I'll now explain my changes to the first three paragraphs.[13] As I state above, I re-worded the Emmy info, and improved the refs. Howarth's wins are actually well-documented. I also added some additional accolades I found in other sources, in order to bulk up the point that Howarth's Todd was well-received (more about that later). You'll notice that I followed your advice about the interviews; I think that it's much tighter now.

2nd paragraph: Re: the 7-year old response: I disagree with you that Howarth's description of the fan coming up to him telling him that her child was also a fan can be generalized to many children, just as I think that Hayward doesn't support that young men were fans. Waggett (p. 183) interprets the encounter as I do: one fan with one specific child. I do think, though, that the major point--that Howarth's Todd enjoyed wide appeal and that he was disturbed by fans' reaction to Todd the rapist--was made. I know that you had the fan encounter later; I think that it best belongs here, to support Howarth's feelings, but I can be swayed to place it later. I also think that I've improved the comings-and-goings rumors. I re-structured and moved things around to help the flow.

3rd paragraph: I believe that my version is tighter, and as I state above, flows better. There were too many quotes before, so I paraphrased, although I'm sure it can be done some more. You'll notice that I removed the final sentence, along with the sources. Fly, you probably know the policy better than I (and can certainly cite it), but it isn't customary to make a statement and then cite several sources that combined, make your point. I actually did a search for something that states, "Howarth's performances as Todd continued to be highly acclaimed throughout his tenure," or something like that, but unfortunately came up empty. I'm sure that somebody out there has said something similar. One of the reasons I bulked up the other paragraphs about how well Howarth was received as Todd was to make the point in similar ways. Does that make sense, and is it acceptable to you?

I'll resolve the sources if and/or when it gets moved to the Todd sandbox, and I'll start working on the rest of the section tomorrow, again in my sandbox. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Going on to the St. John content in this section: Again, more re-wording and improving sources. I have a question, though, about SOD's quote about the Walker/Flynn storyline. It strikes me as a little confusing to those unfamiliar with the storyline. I mean, I know kinda what happened, but I'm not sure I can explain it clearly. How about if we explained it here? Would you mind coming up with something, along with an appropriate source?

The first paragraph reads like it was written by someone who didn't believe that St. John's Todd wasn't really Todd. I changed it so that it's consistent with our previous discussion about that. I also cut out some of the description, because I'm not sure it's necessary. I also did some cuts in the midst of my copy-editing. Re: the content about the execution montage: I watched it on YouTube, and the description here isn't accurate. (For some reason, the song has been edited out, but I played a version of it in another window.) There isn't anything about Blair's disbelief in Todd's innocence, and while there are flashbacks (mostly of Blair and of Starr as she grows up), Todd as played by either Howarth or St. John isn't shown. The changes I've made reflect that. I also removed the last sentence because the source states that it wasn't the final tallying for the "award" and because it's not a very reliable source.

It occurs to me that the content in this section is really the critiques of both actors. I wonder, then, if it's best to move it to the "Casting and portrayers" section, even as level-2 subheadings. What do you think of that? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with your first paragraph, except for the The Hollywood Reporter part; your wording states that The Hollywood Reporter relayed that Howarth was one of the most popular actors on OLTL; I pointed out above that The Hollywood Reporter states that he was the most popular actor on OLTL.

I'm fine with your second paragraph. You stated: "I disagree with you that Howarth's description of the fan coming up to him telling him that her child was also a fan can be generalized to many children, just as I think that Hayward doesn't support that young men were fans. Waggett (p. 183) interprets the encounter as I do: one fan with one specific child." I already explained above about the Hayward source; the line about men was meant to be supported by a different source. Regarding the 7-year-old matter, I agree to disagree. Howarth's words are "people"; again, he states: "People have come up to me and said, 'My 7-year-old loves you.' What do I say to that? I'm not going to tell them, 'Don't let your 7-year-old watch TV.' But I have to say, it's disturbing." Again, either he was speaking of children in general, especially an encounter concerning a 7-year-old, or he was speaking of a couple talking about their 7-year-old. It's similar to the "Rape me, Todd" matter; enough sources cite that matter as having been a lone fan stating that at one fan event, while others sources make it seem like it was more than one fan that would state it. I figured that you would remove the Téa Delgado text, but I feel that something about it should remain, since that matter, as the About.com source indicates, was one of Howarth's biggest returns; he was brought back for one week to simply provide a storyline for Téa to leave the series.

I'm fine with your third paragraph. Regarding the several sources matter, keep in mind that, like I stated on my talk page, my editing style was quite different at the time that I significantly expanded the Todd Manning article and eventually brought it to WP:GA status; that was four years ago, and neither the WP:GA nor WP:FA review processes are exactly the same as they were then.

Regarding the St. John information, I don't see how it is automatically "a little confusing to those unfamiliar with the storyline"; we already note the Walker/Flynn storyline in the St. John section a little before the Reception and impact section. It's the reader's job to make sure that he or she is familiar with storyline aspects noted earlier on in the article before moving on to the reception section if he or she doesn't want to be confused about reception to the storyline aspects; I don't see a need to have the matter repeated in the article.

You stated, "The first paragraph reads like it was written by someone who didn't believe that St. John's Todd wasn't really Todd." I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm fine with your changes to that paragraph. As for "Re: the content about the execution montage," the only thing that I see that was inaccurate is the length of the montage. The part about "Blair's disbelief in Todd's innocence" is not only about what is seen in the montage; it is about why fans found the montage difficult to watch, though, yes, I included material that happens in the montage (such as Starr standing outside in the presence of a lynch mob). Blair believed that Todd was guilty, and this is why he wouldn't speak to her right before being put to execution, but eventually did with accusatory and other biting words. See this clip (starting at 5:26). So we see that aspect, her disbelief in his innocence, in the montage. The montage is not just about the flashbacks; it begins the moment the music starts, and includes people watching Todd die. By the way, where did you get the June 6th date for the 2006 source used for that material? As for the montage not showing Howarth or St. John, it does; it shows Howarth in the background, alongside Starr, at one point where Blair is holding Jack and someone (perhaps Viki) caresses Jack's head, and in the scene where Blair and Starr are lying in bed together. It doesn't show Howarth's face, but he's in there. The montage shows St. John throughout, since the execution is focused on Todd being executed while St. John is in the role of Todd; this is seen in this clip of the montage. As for removing the "In 2009, TV Guide and On Air On Soaps named St. John's portrayal of the scenes as the Top Male Performance of the Decade." line because "it wasn't the final tallying for the 'award' and because it's not a very reliable source.", I don't understand your reasoning; the source shows that Nelson Branco and Michael Fairman awarded St. John's "Dead Man Walking routine" (his death row/execution performances) as "Top Male Performance of the Decade." It's their award, and it's a TV Guide (reliable) source supporting it.

As for "the content in this section is really the critiques of both actors" and you "wonder, then, if it's best to move it to the 'Casting and portrayers' section, even as level-2 subheadings," I'm against that. I've stated a few times above that critical reception to the portrayals should be in the reception section, which is standard practice for fictional character articles. I don't see how it's best to have the critical reception information -- the impact they have had as the characters and as actors, including on critics, and the awards they've won -- in the Casting and portrayal section, which would also leave the Reception and impact section only concerned with the reception to the controversial aspects of the character. Flyer22 (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the Hollywood Reporter correction; it helps to have someone look at what it really said. I re-added the line about Lozano's departure in 2000, as per your request. (Have I become so predictable? I guess so!) ;) Re: this phrase: "...the reaction of many fans disturbed, unnerved, and surprised Howarth": the adjectives describing Howarth's reaction are a combination of the adjectives already used in the paragraph; plus, I assumed that the information was covered in the sources present, none of which I've been able to see. You've seen them, and say that they don't, so I'll follow your recommendation. BTW, the Hollywood Reporter links don't help at all. This [14] only shows a blurb, nothing about Howarth, and this [15] is a google search with the top choice sending you back to the first one. At any rate, based on the quotes from the source you provided, I improved/corrected the language a bit. As to whether it was one woman who did the yelling or one woman with the 7-year-old, it may be true that the sources disagree, but I think that we need to follow the sources available. Again, I think that both sources support my interpretation; if we need to, we can get a third party's take to resolve our disagreement. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: the Walker/Flynn storyline: According to the description of the storyline in the St. John section, Flynn and Walker are the same person; i.e.: While recovering in the hospital, Todd conducts research and learns Mitch has a brother named Walker (also portrayed by St. John), who goes by the name Flynn Laurence. And then there's this line, in this section: Soap Opera Digest said that despite the recast, a difficult situation in and of itself, "St. John aptly distinguished between Walker, who's really Todd, as well as Flynn, who pretended to be Walker". That's where the confusion lies, at least for me. The point that SOD is making is that St. John did an excellent job at portraying two roles at the same time. The SOD wording makes it seem like Flynn and Walker were two different people, and that Flynn was pretending to be Walker, which contradicts the first statement. Perhaps if you explained it, it would clear it up for me and I'd do a better job.

I got the June 6 date from conjecture, after looking at the editions of SOD from Memorial Day week that year. If you could confirm it, that would be great. How long was the montage? I got the 5 minutes 24 seconds from the original article. I've changed the wording to reflect more of your report of what happened during the montage. I agree with you about leaving the structure as is, but I stand by removing the awards. I don't think the Branco source, which is basically a blog, is reliable enough. The point that the execution was well received is already strong enough, anyway. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The "reaction of many fans disturbed, unnerved, and surprised Howarth" bit, those adjectives, or synonyms for those adjectives, are supported by the sources; I didn't state that they are not. By "follow[ing the] recommendation" regarding that, what do you mean? As for The Hollywood Reporter, you provided the same The Hollywood Reporter URL above in your "8:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)" post (I mean twice); I provided that link, but I also provided you with a URL to show that the content is supported; that's this one. Searching the phrase "Todd Manning Howarth became most popular" on Google Books pulls up the The Hollywood Reporter source and this bit of text attached to it for page 28: "... character of Todd Manning. Although his character was a convicted rapist, Howarth turned into the most popular star on the program. In interviews with the soap press, Howarth said he was troubled that his villainous character became such ...".

Regarding the Lozano bit, the reason that I figured you'd remove it is because you don't seem too interested in Todd's One Life to Live romances, except for maybe his romance with Blair; for example, in the #DID and other stuff section above (your "19:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)" post), you mentioned that you saw a lot of chemistry between Todd and Carly Corinthos, and didn't understand why Todd would choose Blair over Carly until you saw Todd with Blair. You're not especially familiar with just how popular the Todd and Blair and Todd and Téa couples were/are, and the fanbase rivalry that existed and still exists there, so it's understandable that you wouldn't think either of those romances need to be noted. As for what you recently added regarding Téa, that bit does not tie in well. It should mention something about the excitement or anticipation that was had regarding that return. Right now, it just seems randomly placed.

Regarding the 7-year-old bit, I already stated that I am fine with your wording in the Todd sandbox. I simply stated that I (personally) disagree that it is clear that Howarth was talking about one instance when he stated "people." I stated that it could be one or more instances that he was referring to. He stated "people have come up to me." What he stated by mentioning the 7-year-old seems to be an example. The 7-year-old aspect does not mean that the 7-year-old matter, if the child was really 7, was the only instance of people coming up to him and stating that their child loves him.

Regarding the "St. John aptly distinguished between Walker, who's really Todd, as well as Flynn, who pretended to be Walker" wording, there was a real Flynn. That's why the St. John section currently in the article states that Todd "pays Flynn for information on Mitch" and also "has extensive plastic surgery in order to physically resemble Flynn and get revenge on (as well as protect his family from) Mitch." St. John portrayed both Walker and Flynn. The real Flynn was barely on the show, but he and Todd (who was pretending to be Walker) faced off at one point; here is a 31:45 clip of that. The aforementioned line you are having trouble with is simply naming the confusing way that St. John portrayed all of those characters, but in distinguishable ways.

About the montage length, refer again to the clip I pointed to above; that's the whole montage (the clip is 4:21 in length, but a couple of seconds are wasted before the clip shows the scenes, and one second is wasted when the clip goes black again at the end). I got the "5 minutes 24 seconds" bit from a source, but the montage clearly is not that long, judging by the aforementioned YouTube clip of it. For a long time now, I've meant to correct that length. With this latest you edit you made regarding the montage, you indicated that St. John is not shown in the montage. I pointed out above that he is. So I will correct that part in the sandbox.

Regarding the awards, it's one award. And I don't understand your resistance to include that award; it's similar to a WP:About self matter. It is perfectly fine to state that Nelson Branco gave St. John an award and to have that cited to Branco at TV Guide. Regarding that source being a blog, it's the same section (Branco's section) of the site that Branco used to conduct interviews with Michael Malone and St. John. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What I meant is that I agree with your interpretation of the Hollywood Reporter source and how it should be used, so I followed your recommendation, which I've done, I believe. And I initially removed the Lozano bit because I misunderstood the importance of it--that one of Howarth's returns was a short one of just one week, in order to assist her with one of her departures. Once I understood it, I put it back in. It certainly wasn't because I don't like Todd's romances; on the contrary, I really liked Howarth as Todd and Laura Wright as Carly on GH, and when I watched the on-line OLTL, I got sold on Todd and Blair. I don't know what side I'd come on in the T&B and T&T debates, although I've enjoyed the clips I've seen of both romances. It's a lot like the Sonny/Jax/Brenda/whomever SIDAR on GH; after years of watching it, I came to the conclusion that I didn't want Brenda with anyone. She's such a twit! Anyway, I love romance on my soaps, like most fans! ;) I think that if I had experienced more of OLTL's history, I wouldn't be on the "Todd's a convicted rapist, so he shouldn't be able to fall in love" camp; I think that I would've pulled for his redemption, mostly because of how both Howarth and St. John handled it, for the most part. I added the phrase "with significant fanfare" to tie the idea to the reaction to Howarth's comings and goings; I hope it connects better now.

If you ever write that book, we need to find out if the fan reactions described were widespread, or if it was one or two that freaked out Howarth. One or two's enough! I think that we do a good job at describing Todd's romantic relationships and their effect on Todd's life and character, but I wonder if we should put the main article template in the "Characteristics" section, since that's where we emphasize them the most.

I'm still confused about the whole Flynn/Walker/Todd thing. I suggest that we deal with it by avoiding it. Can we keep my wording? Unless you can come up with a better, but still clear alternative?

I went ahead and fixed the Todd in the background during the montage stuff as per your suggestion, and saw your change to the length. How about this solution to the awards controversy: instead of saying that it was an award, on the same level as an Emmy, we say this: "Soap commentator Nelson Branco called St. John's execution performances the best on any soap in the early 2000s." I think that we've resolved enough for me to move the section over to the Todd sandbox. Tell me if you still have any issues. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I know that you didn't state that you hate Todd's romances; I was simply relaying that, to me, you don't seem too interested in Todd's One Life to Live romances, except for maybe his romance with Blair; I explained why that's understandable. You have not been especially exposed to these couples, and Todd and Blair have survived as the true love couple out of the Blair/Todd/Téa love triangle (though I and many others still prefer the Todd and Téa love story). Both couples were highly dysfunctional, and it's often silly that fans debate which couple was more dysfunctional. Some Todd and Blair fans will bring up the fact that Todd punched Téa in the face; some Todd and Téa fans will bring up the fact that Todd came close to raping Blair or that he caused Blair to grieve for months by having her think that her child was dead. The fanbases debate whether having hit a woman is worse than having almost raped her, almost intentionally killed her or told her that her baby is dead. And, yes, the love triangles/fanbase rivalries are similar to the Sonny/Brenda/Jax love triangles/fanbase rivalries; some soap opera fans have compared those couple dynamics, though the couples are very different. And, yes, the "with significant fanfare" part that you readded is fine.

The Main article template in the "Romancing rape victim and rape revisited" section fits better there than in the "Characteristics" section; that template is pointing to a specific section of the article for elaboration. And we already link to the Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines article in the Background section.

I'm not sure what you are confused about regarding "the whole Flynn/Walker/Todd thing." As for your wording on it, I don't see how it differs much from the wording I already had there; it still states, "St. John aptly distinguished between Walker, who's really Todd, as well as Flynn, who pretended to be Walker."

Regarding the montage, you readded that St. John's face is not seen, which I changed again. Compare that to here. I'm still confused by how you think that St. John's face is not seen in the montage. It makes me wonder if you are watching a different clip than I am. Again, the montage is not just flashbacks, and St. John's face is clearly shown at parts in the flashbacks. Are you not identifying St. John in the montage because of hair style or something?

As for the awards matter, I still don't see why you object to the awards part, but I changed it to add in Michael Fairman to better represent the matter. Also, maybe Nelson and Fairman were not simply talking about soap operas; maybe they were talking about St.John's performance being the best acting performance by a male for that decade in general; a stretch, sure, but who knows what they meant for certain? Maybe that's an aspect of the previous wording you had a problem with? Flyer22 (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: relationships: I agree with everything you've said, but will add that in-depth discussions of Todd's romances better belong in their respective articles. (And no--I don't think I want to work on them, LOL! Seriously, I think those articles are best written by actual viewers.) You've convinced me about keeping the template where it is. Thanks for correcting the montage description; I've only seen it once, and not including St. John is probably just an oversight on my part. I'm not going to go back and watch it again, but will accept you the expert's take on it. I also like your changes to the awards content. That was easy! I think we can count this as resolved. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, as you may have noticed, there is only one article about a Todd Manning romance, and that's the Todd Manning and Blair Cramer article, unless one considers the Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines article a Todd romance article because it notes romance. If the Todd Manning and Blair Cramer article is ever deleted, the topic of that romance should have a section devoted to it at the Todd Manning article (if it can't neatly fit into one of the existing sections). Todd Manning and Téa Delgado redirects to a section of the Téa Delgado article, for obvious reasons; so much of her character, significantly more than Blair's, is based on Todd Manning (starting at that section and going down, for example, there is so much information about Todd Manning; this includes the Reception section). Flyer22 (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Controversy: Rape and redemption

Resolved comments

Continuing on; as I've done before, I'm using my sandbox to draft [16].

• I've changed the wording in the first paragraph from Hayward. I felt like we needed explain what she meant by polarization of the rapists. I mean, we know what she means because we're familiar with the discussion, but I'm not sure readers unfamiliar with it would be. Let me know if I handled it appropriately.
• Paragraph #2: I tried to incorporate the sources better here, especially from Hayward. Instead of saying, "Further, the character's redemption was controversial and has been scrutinized", I chose to specifically state how that was done. You'll notice that I removed the Scordari ref, because I don't know what it said. If you have access to it, could you provide me with it? I'll have more later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• I was thinking about paraphrasing the large Howarth quote about his departure in 1995, or at least putting it in a quote box, but I think that it's important enough to keep it as is. Later reviewers might disagree, though. I was also thinking about moving this section up to the "Redeeming Todd" section. I suspect that you'll disagree, but hear me out, please. I think that it should be moved because it's really a continuation of the discussion about the rape and Todd's redemption, and completes the story about Howarth's tenure and why he left. Perhaps we can put it in a subsection entitled "Criticism".
• I still don't think the line about the 7-year-old fits here, especially with its current wording. It feels like an afterthought, so I cut it.
• You'll notice that I removed the stuff about Howarth never allowing Todd to be fully redeemed, because even though I haven't looked at all the refs from SOD, I suspect that it's gleamed from the sources, an issue that came up in the previous section, in the 3rd paragraph. I think that in order to keep it, we need to find a source that states, "Howarth attempted, during his entire tenure as Todd, to prevent him from being fully redeemed" or something like that. I wasn't able to find it. The point that Howarth was opposed to the redemption, even to the point of quitting, has been strongly made, though.
• Another thing I wonder about is how Howarth felt when he returned, again as Todd, in 2011. Was that Todd redeemed, after all those years imprisoned and apart from everyone he loved? Was the Todd on GH redeemed, or just softer around the edges? I'm surprised that there hasn't been an interview with him back in 2011, or maybe I haven't been able to find it. Or perhaps Howarth was still following his policy against interviews? At the very least, I'm genuinely surprised that nothing has seemed to be said about it in the soap press, or at least anything that I could find. I might be able to find something when we get to the content about the return and the online version. Do you know of any sources? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The Christine Scodari reference was supporting that redeeming Todd was a controversial arc; that's why that source is also currently used here in the article.

You're correct that I disagree with moving the "Rape and redemption" section; I've heard you out on it; I have listened to your reasoning before, but I can never agree, not even to including a Criticism section in the "Redeeming Todd" section. There is already enough material in the "Redeeming Todd" section, especially regarding Hayward, and the information you want to move there is specifically critical reception to Todd's rape of Marty and redemption matter; it therefore belongs in the Reception and impact section. There was significant reception to Todd's rape of Marty and his redemption, and that should of course be covered in the section that deals with reception.

There is no need for the 7-year-old bit being there since you moved it to the General section; including that would be redundant, so I don't see a problem with you cutting what would have been redundant.

I'm fine with you having removed the "Howarth continued to leave and return to the role until his 2003 departure from the series, but ensured Todd was never fully redeemed." part, but I think it's clear that Todd has never been fully redeemed. He was still being portrayed as a villain in 2002 (one year before Howarth quit as Todd again), still being nominated as a villain; with the 2011 return, hmm, yes, I can see how you would think that he might have been redeemed. But he did end up killing his mother in cold blood (to his credit, she was a horrible person), "killing" his brother (you know, he thought he did), and later switching Téa's baby (similar to what he did with his and Blair's baby -- Jack -- because he thought Max Holden was the father), albeit reluctantly and with a conscience (unlike the way he initially was when trying to get rid of his and Blair's baby).

I'm fine with your other changes to the section. Flyer22 (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, sorry I've missed my own deadlines. As predicted, things have gotten busy, but I'll do my best to continue here.

Re: Scodari: I think that the solution is to remove this source, since it's already well-documented that the redemption was controversial.

We can agree to disagree about the "Rape and redemption" section, but I'm willing acquiesce to your opinion as this article's main editor and expert about the topic. However, I would like to bring up our difference of opinion when we submit this to PR and get others' opinions. For now, I'll leave it as is when I move the content from my sandbox to the Todd sandbox, which I'll go ahead and do now.

Ha ha, I love the diversions we take; nothing we can add to the article but grist for your future book. ;) I didn't realize that the baby switch on GH had parallels to previous history! Ah, doncha love the soap genre, for this very reason. And yes, Todd was very conflicted about switching Tea and Sam's babies, which was very fun to watch, even without knowing about the previous history. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Merchandising

Resolved comments

Not to pressure you, Fly, but I'm going on because I go back to work in a week and I wanted to be finished with my part before I get swamped. Respond when you can.

• I don't think we should use The Stranger source [17] I find the language it uses offensive (see May 9th entry, the last sentence); it's not the most reliable source; and all the information can be garnered from other sources. That means that I need to remove the large quote, which I was going to do anyway.
• Oh, look: this section is much shorter now! Kinda figured that was gonna happen. ;) That means that this section here is short, too. More tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What don't you like about The Stranger source? As for its reliability, it's reliable enough for the content that it was reporting on. But, no, I don't mind that you removed it or its quote. And the section looks nice in your version. Flyer22 (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, since you asked, I object to this language: "In the wake of ABC's decision, the American toy industry is said to be reevaluating a number of other collectible figures based on characters with unsavory pasts, including the predatory homosexual robot C-3PO and notorious cum slut Malibu Skipper." Ugh, and pa-leeze. I will not use sources that use that type of language, even if the objectionable language isn't used, in any article I work on. That, in and of itself, is what makes it unreliable and not formal enough to use in an encyclopedia article. Like I said, you asked, and I'm jus' sayin'. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yikes. I can see why you object to using the source, even if the source is engaging in what it finds humorous. That bit of phrasing in the source must have been something I overlooked or, after a quick glance at it, just didn't care about when building the article at that time. Flyer22 (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Recast

Resolved comments

I'm moving on some more because I'm going away this weekend, and I don't know how much time I'll have to come here. Again, don't take this as pressure. See User:Figureskatingfan/sandbox#Recast for my drafting.

• 1st paragraph: Along with re-wording it, I've expanded this sentence: The soap opera media noticed as well. as per what I've said before regarding using multiple sources to support the same assertion. Ooo, I see that you're responded to my earlier work; I'll see how far I can get and continue here later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I like what you've done with the first paragraph of the Recast section. Flyer22 (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Going forward:

• Do you happen to have the URL for the Coleridge TV Guide.com ref? I ask because I can guarantee that we'll be pinged about citing a website but not providing the URL. If you don't have it, the only way that I can see avoiding being pinged is if we say that the article appeared in the print version. If we can't do that, I highly recommend removing the content it supports.
• Question: Did the picture of Howarth's Todd and Tea's delirious assertion that St. John wasn't the real Todd occur in the same episode? If not, we need to re-word the sentence a bit; if so, we can leave it as is, or at least my version of it. More later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The Coleridge TV Guide.com source became a dead link some time back (a few or more years). We can, of course, look for a copy of it online. As for removing the content, I disagree, and I don't think that we will be asked to remove it in the WP:FA review. If we are asked to do that, I could cite some things that WP:Dead link states.

Yes, the "picture of Howarth's Todd and Tea's delirious assertion that St. John wasn't the real Todd occur[ed] in the same episode"; see this YouTube clip (starting at 6:36 or 6:56 if you don't want to watch the whole clip). I didn't see the scene when it aired, since I was not big on watching the show at that time (I think I mentioned on this talk page before that I was not heavily into watching the show after Howarth left the series in 2003); I saw it on YouTube. Flyer22 (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I've done a search on Coleridge and on the article itself, and found that he wrote The Q Guide to Soap Operas, which discusses LGBT issues in soaps, but wasn't able to find the article. My solution was to treat the article like it appeared in the print version, which I think should fly. And thanks for answering my question; we'l keep the wording in my version. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Daniel R. Coleridge was the main TV Guide soap opera commentator (Nelson Branco, as you know, was also a part of TV Guide, but he was regulated to TV Guide Canada). And, yes, as is seen in the Todd Manning article, I have treated TVGuide.com sources, and other sources, as print versions once the source became a dead link. As has been pointed out on this talk page, in cases like "Scodari, Christine (2002). 'Soap Operas'. St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture.", the source was already a print source, but happened to go dead for its URL. Flyer22 (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, going by this interview shown on YouTube (I first watched it weeks ago), I don't think The Q Guide to Soap Operas is primarily about LGBT issues. Flyer22 (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Here are my thoughts about this section: I'm not sure it's really about the controversy about St. John's recast of Todd. To me, it reads more like a recounting of the rumors about Howarth through the years and the events surrounding his eventual return in 2011. IOW, it's more a historical recounting and not a description about controversy. I'm wondering, then, if this content better belongs above, in a subsection (entitled something like "Howarth's 2011 return") of the "Casting and portrayals" section. Additionally, I've always thought that there needs to be some content about Todd's move to GH after ABC cancelled OLTL, the epic fail of the on-line version, and the debacle that came out of it about GH using OLTL characters. (There are certainly enough sources about it.) IOW, we should include content about Todd's later history on GH and online. Perhaps this might be the place for it, regardless of where it appears in the article. I'll construct this shortly, hopefully by the end of the weekend, along with the rest of the copyedit for this section. Please let me know what you think. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Part of the section is clearly about the criticism/controversy regarding casting St. John in place of Howarth for the role of Todd. And when I or others were adding other material relating to what happened regarding Howarth vs. St. John, it seemed better placed there than in the Casting and portrayals section. I also think it seems unbalanced to only have that material in Howarth's section when it equally relates to St. John. And some fans who enjoyed St. John as Todd were upset by the rewrite (rewriting St. John's character as Todd twin's brother), but I didn't get around to adding that material. I agree that some of the casting material, like the 2011 information, looks like it should go in the Casting and portrayals section; but since it involves fans' reception, I prefer having it in the Reception and impact section. How about we change the Controversy heading to Criticism and fan debate, since that section's subsections contain both? Or we can have it as Controversy and fan debate? Either heading can help relay that some of the content, such as how Howarth would return to the role in 2011, concerns fans debating the subject. Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

And I agree that we should include content about Todd's move to General Hospital after ABC cancelled One Life to Live, and the mess that happened afterward regarding that. After all, we currently include the move material in the lead of the Todd Manning article, and that "Contract disputes with Prospect Park, who hold the character rights to One Life to Live characters, eventually restricted Howarth from portraying Todd on General Hospital. Howarth later agreed to reprise the role of Todd on the Prospect Park continuation of One Life to Live." A lot of this is a reception matter as well, since it resulted in criticism from soap opera analysts and fans. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about adding a third subsection to "Casting and portrayals" section, entitled "Howarth's 2011 return". If we do that, what do you think about changing the sub-section title to "Re-writing controversy"? Of course, in order to do that we'd have to find sources about the fans' displeasure with it. Do you happen to know of any sources? I've done a cursory google search, but haven't found anything substantial. I'll refine my search, and look in library sources, but if you had them, that would make my life easier. I suspect that many of these possible sources are online, since the re-writing and the on-line version occurred relatively recently. I have no problem with keeping the "Controversy" title, since I'm of the opinion that fan debate is the same as criticism. I'm willing to wait and see what the reviewers come up with.

(Side note: Fly, I will always have your back. I'm writing this here to at least make some attempt to hide what I want to say, so forgive the digression. Although we've digressed before, right? ;) I'm sure you know that I recently attended a DC Wikimania event, and much of it consisted of meta-discussion about sexism on WP, the gender gap, the systemic bias, and safe spaces on WP. One of the things I went away with was the importance of editors, especially women in this often-hostile environment, to bring together posses to protect and stand up for each other. When I saw that attack on your talk page, I was just going to ignore it, but after thinking about it, I realized that I couldn't. If I had learned anything from the training, I couldn't. When that kind of thing happens, we need to circle the wagons, despite the possible repercussions. Notice that the jerk left you alone after that! And after his initial response to me ("Duh, I'm a dumb guy and that wasn't my intention" b*lls**t), he backed away. Scary bully--not! Seems like he was just a troll, stirring up trouble at the Tea House, and when the community set up boundaries, he went away. Imagine that! Anyway, I'm glad that I learned my lesson and was able to help. I know that if I ever needed it, you'd have my back, too.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, I've finished drafting the content as described above. As also above, I did an extensive search for fan response to what we're calling "the re-writing," and came up empty. The soap opera press being what it is here in the U.S., with the limitations most likely brought onto it by the decline in U.S. soaps the last several years, I've discovered that there's very little reliable content about American soaps on the internet. Which is no big surprise. The soap press doesn't tend to put its content online, and there is currently a dearth of soap websites. Again, no surprises. We may not be able to add the content discussed above, which brings me back to my original suggestion that the content here be moved to "Casting and portrayal", unless you can provide the content we'd like. In the meantime, I think that I'm going to move forward and work on the last two sections. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As always, I think that reception material should stay in the Reception and impact section. But to make all of the recast/casting material in that section fit neatly where it is, I think we should change the "Controversy" subheading. Fans debate a lot of things and it's not always controversial. So I think we should go with the heading "Controversy and fan debate" or "Controversy and fan speculation." We could also go with the alternative of changing the Recast title to "Recast and fan debate," but, unless we change the "Controversy" heading, the recast material would still be under that heading when fan debate is not necessarily controversy. I think that changing the Controversy heading to "Controversy and fan debate" might be best. As for not being able to cover the fact that some fans who enjoyed St. John as Todd were upset by the writers rewriting St. John's character as Todd twin's brother, perhaps SoapCentral.com has some articles on that. The soap opera press puts its content online in the way of that site or sites such as Soap Opera Digest online.

As for the guy, you mean this guy. Yes, thank you. And you are correct that I would have your back as well. Flyer22 (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Changed the subheading title as per your suggestion. I'm not sure I agree, but I think that your suggestion moves us closer to the solution. And how about changing the "Recast" section to "Recast and fan reaction", to make it different. I'll look at the SOD and SoapCentral sites, and since we agree that the Jill Berry's blog is reliable, I'll look there, too. And I think we also agree that we two rock. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Changing the heading to "Recast and fan reaction" is certainly fine. Flyer22 (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Final two sections

Resolved comments

I know that I just said that I was going to work on the last two sections, but I wanted to express some considerations here first. Again, I'm not sure that the content belongs here. For example, I wonder if the content in "Teenagers manhandled" better belongs in "Characteristics." For one thing, it would make the section more balanced with discussion about St. John's version of Todd. I also see this discussion as being more about Todd's character: his propensity to violence, his difficulties with sex, his mental instability. I'll wait to work on it until after you respond, since it would change the focus of the discussion if we moved it.

By the same token, I wonder if the "Rape re-visited" content should also be moved, to the "Redeeming Todd" section. (I know, you're shocked that I would suggest that.) I make this suggestion because I believe that this storyline, as repugnant as many viewers believed it was, was another attempt to redeem Todd by making Marty forgive and fall in love with him, even via amnesia. Again, I'll wait for your response, for the same reason above.

I think the real issue here is that these sections feel like an after-thought and out of place. I suspect that they were placed there because of the arguments about St. John and real Toddness. Since we've agreed that we're treating St. John's portrayal as if he were really playing Todd, I think moving these sections would help with the disjointedness from which this article often suffers. It's too bad we can't find any content about the fans' feelings about this, other than the short and few statements that are already there. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and do the above, despite the apparent retirement of Flyer22. Hopefully, the recent unpleasantness she's had to experience lately won't drive her away from WP, and all she needs is some time off. Hopefully, she'll come back and we can fight about this some more. If so, we can make changes as needed. I'm also going to make the changes I described in the previous section. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Update: As per Fly's request, I've reverted my changes to the Recast section pending our future discussion. I'll move forward with working on these sections, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, I'd rather keep the reception material in the Reception and impact section. Think of it this way: If we had reception material in other sections, what would be the point of the Reception and impact section? Reception/impact sections are the sections that readers are supposed to go to in order to find out what critics and fans thought of the characters and/or series; usually anyway, and I prefer that setup. It's the standard setup for fictional character articles and for articles about television shows or films. The sections that you are suggesting be merged in the Characteristics section or Redeeming Todd section fit best in the Reception and impact section, in my opinion. These are sections that deal with critics' and fans' thoughts; they are certainly reception/impact, so I don't think that they feel like an after-thought and out of place in a section that is about reception and impact. That's why I placed them there. When you stated "the fans' feelings about this," you mean "arguments about St. John and real Toddness"? If so, there is enough there about that topic. Flyer22 (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Reminder: my copyedit of this section is in my sandbox awaiting feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean the Teenagers manhandled section. If so, I commented below. Flyer22 (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you meant the Recast section. Of course I'm fine with your changes to that section, except with moving it to the Roger Howarth section. I stated that in the Recast discussion above. Flyer22 (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that, in that discussion, I only stated "I like what you've done with the first paragraph of the Recast section" regarding approving of your changes to that section. But still, I didn't object to any of the other changes. So, yeah, I approve. Flyer22 (talk) 09:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The "OLTL was cancelled in early 2012" paragraph should go in the Roger Howarth section, since it does not directly deal with recast information or fan reception. Flyer22 (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And by "should go in the Roger Howarth section," I don't mean as a subsection of the Roger Howarth section; I mean as a paragraph in that section. Per MOS:Paragraphs, creating a subsection for a little bit of material is usually not what is best. If you add critical reception to that paragraph, I'd rather that paragraph stay in the Reception and impact section, especially since I like the Casting and portrayals sections as they are in your Todd sandbox...being strictly about the casting and portrayals of these characters, not about fan debate or casting disputes between the networks several years later. Flyer22 (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Or it should perhaps go at the end of the Trevor St. John section for better flow. By that, I mean all of the initial Howarth and St. John casting detail comes first, and then the casting mixup comes after that. Yes, I prefer that it goes at the end of the Trevor St. John section, especially since we currently state in that section "In 2011, Howarth returned to the show, and it was revealed that St. John's version of Todd was actually his identical twin brother, Victor Lord, Jr., who was conditioned to believe that he was Todd and to assume his identity." Other than the lead, we begin with the casting mixup information in that section; it makes the most sense to complete the casting (non-fan reception) mixup information in that section. Flyer22 (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Just moved the content from my sandbox, remaining in the section you insist. We'll again agree to disagree and see what other third-party reviewers think. I get you about the cancellation content and agree that it better fits where you suggest; doing this may help with the disjointedness of these sections. We really need fresh eyes for this article; we've been working on it for so long and it's so complicated, so I feel like we need to depend on other editors to deal with its flow and structure. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

What I disagree with concerning this edit you made to your sandbox is that it includes the "In 2009" portion and redundancy. Right now, the Recast and fan response section is missing the fan response material that you moved to the Trevor St. John section. There is no need to keep the fan response material with all the casting detail, which is why I have been consistent in stating that fan response material should be regulated to the Reception and impact section...unless it's documenting a minor fan response aspect, such as the Creation and development section noting that "Howarth's portrayal of the character inspired notable fan reaction, which prompted the creators to layer Todd's personality and showcase him regularly within the series." So I think that the whole 2009 portion should remain in the Recast and fan response section. And we can tie that material up with part of the 2011 portion. By that, I mean that the 2009 portion should end with the following or something like it: "Although Howarth eventually returned as Todd in 2011, his return was initially accompanied with fan speculation regarding what role he would play, Todd Manning or a new character. Some fans were convinced that St. John's character was an impostor while others were not." I'm okay with all of the other casting material you added to Trevor St. John section, except for the redundancy. For example, I noted above that the section already states: "In 2011, Howarth returned to the show, and it was revealed that St. John's version of Todd was actually his identical twin brother, Victor Lord, Jr., who was conditioned to believe that he was Todd and to assume his identity." Therefore, the following line, except for the eight years and hostage parts, is not needed: "It was eventually revealed that St. John's version of the character was really Victor Lord, Jr., Todd's twin brother, conditioned to believe that he was Todd and assume Todd's identity, while the real Todd (Howarth) was held hostage for eight years."

And regarding this characteristics addition you made, I think that it should be clear that the "For Todd, his redemption storyline played itself out several times, especially when St. John played him." part is Marlena De Lacroix's opinion. I don't think that it's a fact that Todd's redemption was especially played out during St. John's portrayal. The redemption aspect seems much more of a Howarth portrayal matter. Making Todd more sympathetic, if that was the intention with any of St. John's storylines, is not necessarily a continuation of redeeming Todd. In other words, being more sympathetic is not necessarily redemption. Indeed, some viewers felt that St. John's Todd was darker in personality than that of Howarth's Todd, especially after the "Todd beat up Cole" and "Todd re-raped Marty" controversies; this is because Todd has always been kind to kids (granted, it's not like the late teenagers were little children) and because Todd would never take advantage of Marty in the way that "Todd" did when she had amnesia. Flyer22 (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding commentary from Jill Berry, I think we should go easy on that; mostly because some editors think that any use of About.com is automatically WP:Unreliable and don't take WP:Context matters into consideration (for example, that some well known soap opera commentators often blog, or would often blog). I feel the same way about mediabizbloggers.com (if that site were still named jackmyers.com, there wouldn't be as much of a worry since the word bloggers would be missing from the title). And as you know, in the Teenagers manhandled section below, I pointed to some discussions concerning About.com as a source. I used Jill Berry sparingly, but, in the Characteristics section, I see that you've added more commentary from her. The same goes for Marlena De Lacroix at mediabizbloggers.com. But with using Berry as a source, or any other known soap opera commentator as a source, relaying the words from a site that might be considered WP:Unreliable, we should be fine as long as we are using it in a WP:Intext-attribution and/or WP:BLOGS and/or WP:About self manner. Flyer22 (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused, mostly because I've lost the flow of discussion. I thought that I was doing what you wanted by moving what's now in the last two paragraphs to the St. John section. Personally, I think that the solution is to create a new subsection ("Howarth's 2011 return") in the "Casting and portrayals" section and place these paragraphs there. But now I'm just repeating myself. If you could just do what you're suggesting so that I could see it, that would be great.

And it looks like I've misunderstood what you've said about About.com and Marlena, which is why I added it. I actually agree, which is why I've hesitated using these sites up to now. So I will go ahead and revert them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, per above, I only meant that the 2012 part be moved to the St. John section. And regarding my "05:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)" post above, this is what I meant. But as seen here and here, I've changed my mind and think that we should have a general section about the casting departure details, and leave the Roger Howarth and Trevor St. John sections to go into further detail on casting matters, and the Reception and impact section to address fan and critical material on that. I know what you mean about it sometimes seeming as though a casting detail should go in the Casting and portrayals section; for example, while contemplating on moving the Malone bit (about the network being "happy to have [Todd] return to Llanview whenever Roger would come back") to the General casting section, I pondered moving the Waggett line (currently in the General section of the Reception and impact section) about "rumors of [Howarth's] departures [being] reported sometimes weekly by the soap press" to there as well, but I decided that it fits better where it is. Otherwise, what's the argument for not moving all of the other reception on Howarth's casting and returns there? The argument from me, as you know, is that the reception belongs in the sections that are about the reception. Anyway, this new setup that I have created works best, in my opinion, because it keeps this "general" (non-fan/non-critical reception) casting material in a section of its own as a summary of the "coming and going" casting aspect, instead of in either the Roger Howarth or Trevor St. John section, when it concerns both of these actors and their characters.

As for About.com (Jill Berry or otherwise) and Marlena De Lacroix, I'm not sure what you misunderstood about my comments on that, but I see that you removed all of your new additions regarding those sources; that's a good thing because it's best to err on the side of caution on this matter, per what I stated in my "06:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)" post above. Sparingly is the way to go for those sources, and usually with WP:Intext-attribution, even though the good thing about one of those Jill Berry sources is that she touched on the fact that Todd was always kind to kids. Flyer22 (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

On a side note: I'm confused about whether or not we should italicize the acronym "OLTL." Whatever the case, we should be consistent with that. I generally prefer to spell things out, but since you have been using the acronyms, I'm going with the flow on that. But when we use acronyms, there should be one instance in the article that has already made clear what the acronym stands for, like I did with this edit regarding General Hospital. Flyer22 (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

As you can see here and here, I've made more tweaks to the new casting setup and to other matters. Also, I think that now that we have the Controversy and fan debate heading, the Recast and fan response heading is not needed; it can simply remain as Recast, like it was before. Flyer22 (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm good with your tweaks, and your solution of creating a new subsection is a fine one. I think we can re-visit the use of acronyms. I was under the impression that "OLTL" was used by fans and the soap press. I know that "GH" certainly is. The general grammar rule is that you italicize them if they're the title of printed name. One Life to Live is italicized, so its acronym is. I'm sure I've missed them, so we need to check for consistency before we publish this in article space. We also need to make sure that we don't overuse them.

I still think it's best to put the "Recast" section with the other recast info, but I'm willing to leave it as is until we get a second opinion. (I need to comb through this talk page for our "disagreements" so I can bring them up at PR.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, "OLTL" is used. I was simply stating that I prefer to spell the names out, but am fine going with the acronyms, and that we should definitely spell the name out at first appearance. And we obviously should be consistent with italicization.

While I am open to reading what others state on the casting information, my mind won't change on keeping reception material separate from basic relevant information. If we applied your take of having so much reception material mixed in with basic relevant information (and I'm referring to more than just the casting material), that renders the Reception and impact section as needless, and makes for an article that is less clean and more jumbled. Character articles (as well as television and film articles) keep these things separate for the reasons I've already mentioned. In a Casting section, there is no need to state a particular thing that an actor did in the role and how fans reacted to that particular thing. The casting section is supposed to be about casting, not much about how fans and/or critics felt about that casting. It simply doesn't seem like a good route to me to have a section about critical and fan reception, and to then include some critical and fan reception in a section that is not about that. And, yes, I do think that we should have a Reception and impact section; I don't see why this article should be any different from the other character articles in that regard. As for a PR, I take it that you mean WP:Peer review. You didn't mention that you also want to take the Todd Manning article to WP:Peer review until now. That process is similar to a WP:Featured article review. Going through one of those processes this year would be enough for me, but you want us to go through these two processes back-to-back, with people telling us the way that they want the article. I can't say that I'm keen on that idea, especially since I'd have to repeat myself (what I've stated here) there. I'd rather go through the process of making changes just to please outside critics once this year, but if you think that a WP:Peer review is best to handle our disagreements because you'd rather not settle for compromises on those matters, I am reluctantly semi-okay with that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You make some good arguments. I'm sure these issues will come up at review, a process I don't anticipate going smoothly. I think it will be a valuable process, though, because will mean for a better article. And yes, I'm talking about WP:Peer review. I thought that I had mentioned my desire to bring this article there, but I might not have and I'm too lazy to look it up to make sure. I was just thinking that the more feedback the better. Our dear departed User:Wadewitz told me once, "I like lots of reviews!" (I have a story about that quote, but I'll tell it to you on your talk page instead.) I also like to be as prepared for FAC as possible. If you're more comfortable with going to directly to FAC, I'm fine with that. I think that once we resolve the "rape-revisited" section below, come to an agreement about the plot section, and choose the images, I think we can cut-and-paste the draft version into article space. We're so close! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Teenagers manhandled

• I don't know if I like the title of this section. If we fold its content into "Characteristics" as proposed above, then it wouldn't matter because it would be added to the end of the section. If not, and we keep it here, how about changing it to "Violence towards minors", because what Todd did was more serious.
• I'm assuming that the first quote is from Branco.
• I hesitate using Jill's commentary, since it's basically a blog, but we used it before, in a similar way. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the part about One Life to Live airing "some of the most explosive and ugliest scenes ever broadcast on daytime" is Branco's wording. We should go ahead and use WP:Intext-attribution for that.

I'm fine with your changes to this section, except that you changed "manhandled fellow teenagers Markko Rivera and Langston Wilde." to "slapped Starr and Cole's friends Markko Rivera and Langston Wilde." I question the slapped part. Where did you get "slapped"? Did he slap both of them? I never did see that whole exchange; I think I watched the "Todd beat up Cole" thing on YouTube. I'm fine with your changing the title of that section to your suggestion. Flyer22 (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And regarding the Jill commentary... Well, it's an About.com article by a known soap opera commentator; About.com sometimes passes as a WP:Reliable source. And if it doesn't in this case, it passes as WP:About self. Flyer22 (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Marlena Delacroix uses the word "slapped" to describe what happened. I should've said before that "manhandled" is too close to the source, which is why I think we should change the subsection title, as I've already done. And like I said above, using Jill is fine. Gotta go, more later! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that, because the source uses the same word, there is a need to change the heading; I don't think that qualifies as a WP:Copyvio problem (if you were worried about a WP:Copyvio problem), but I always felt that the heading "Teenagers manhandled" was a little awkward, so, again, I'm fine with you having changed that heading to your suggestion. As for the slapping part, I'm going to have to research that; I don't remember it being stated that Todd slapped a teenage girl. Flyer22 (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Marlena's exact words: "Earlier he had slapped Starr's friends Markko and Langston when he thought they were hiding Cole and Starr's whereabouts." If she's wrong, and we have YouTube evidence of the contrary, we should change it. It also strikes me (har-pun unintended) as very un-Toddlike, with his kindness towards children. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the debates among viewers regarding the "Todd beat up Cole" controversy was that even though Todd was always kind to children, late teenagers aren't children in the strictest sense; this is why I stated in my "05:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)" post above "...Todd has always been kind to kids (granted, it's not like the late teenagers were little children)." Some viewers partly defended St. John's Todd's actions during that whole drama because they argued that late teenagers are basically adults, are adults in other parts of the world and once they reach age 18 in the United States. One or two years from being age 18 was a minor difference in their eyes. Flyer22 (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that teenagers, even older ones, are still children. Teenagers are unable to reason like adults, so Todd's violence towards Cole is reprehensible. It demonstrates how out of control he was, and how he connected sex with violence, so his instinct was to physically prevent Cole from raping his daughter, since he was well aware of its affects. At any rate, I think we've resolved this section. Wow, we're heading for the home stretch! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've pointed out the following more than once on Wikipedia (usually when dealing with pedophilia or ephebophilia topics and people not distinguishing sexual attraction to a prepubescent from, for example, sexual attraction to a 17-year-old): The brains of mid-to-late adolescents actually are not all that different from the brains of adults. And the human brain is not fully cognitively developed until about age 24 or age 25. There is no significant cognitive difference between a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old; there is especially no significant cognitive difference between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old. This is also why it's often fine for an 18-year-old to date a 16 or 17-year-old in high school. I think that what people need to keep in mind is that there was a time (for example, my grandparents' time) when late teenagers (16 to 19-year-olds) did well taking on the role of "adult" (we still have 16 to 19-year-olds in the United States and elsewhere taking on adult roles, whether it's driving, joining the army, being defined as legal adults, etc.), and that they think drastically differently from prepubescent children. Except for cases of sexual abuse (an adult trying to take, or taking, sexual advantage of a minor), I often think that it's best not to treat a 16 or 17-year-old as a child, but rather as a young adult; not only because they usually don't want to be thought of as children (I know that I didn't when I was 16 and later 17), but because they don't think like little children and their thinking is usually similar to or identical to the thinking of adults, and because they need to be prepared to be an adult once they do turn age 18 (unless the age of majority is lower where they live and they already are deemed adults). All that stated, I completely understand your point on this matter and agree that "Todd" beating up the kids was repulsive, and I agree with your thoughts on his line of thinking. Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Rape revisited

• I wasn't able to find the "OLTL Scribe On A Todd And Marty Pairing" source, but I did find it on a bulletin board.[18] I re-worded the paragraph to better reflect the source.
• I also expanded the section a little more, after finding a few more sources. You may think that it's too long, but I think it's comprehensive.
• I wonder if we should rename this section, too. The section doesn't really talk about "Romancing rape", and none of the sources I found mentions it (although there is a source that calls the storyline "the re-rape"). What do you think about renaming it to "Re-rape controversy"? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that your expansion is too long. As for renaming the section, the section deals with "Todd" bonding with/romancing Marty. This is noted in some of the sources; for example, ones that refer to it as a rapemance. The section is not simply about Todd having sex with Marty. To some fans, the sexual encounter was rape; to other fans, it was not rape. So because of those points (the interaction being about more than sexual activity and the sexual activity not being rape to some viewers), I don't think that we should use "re-rape" in the heading, even if in quotation marks. I'm open to changing the heading, though. And I personally consider the sexual encounter a re-rape. Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I tend to be a little socially conservative, as you can tell from the previous section here, so I suspect that I'd agree with you that it was a "re-rape". How about renaming the section "Rape storyline revisited"? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's go with that. Flyer22 (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, that title ("Rape storyline revisited") is not descriptive enough for this case, in my opinion, and makes it seem like that section should be a part of the Rape and redemption section. Let's go ahead and title it "Revictimizing rape victim or Revictimizing Marty. If "revictimizing" is not standard enough as a word, we can use "revictimization of." While the "Todd" and Marty "romance" storyline had its fans, which was disturbing to many viewers and critics, especially concerning kids who were fans of the story, and those fans didn't see the storyline as a revictimization, it played out as a revictimization onscreen. Marty and most other characters felt that it was a revictimization. And of course it was, since Marty had amnesia and "Todd" was lying to her about her life. Marty also felt that the sexual encounter was a re-rape; "Todd" was charged for rape, but he was not taken to trial for/convicted of it. Téa was his lawyer, and made it so that the trial/conviction did not happen. All of this is noted at Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines#2008-2009: "Re-rape". Flyer22 (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I like Revictimizing Marty; will make change now. And I've now put that article on my radar, to work on eventually. Of course, I have all kinds of articles on that list, but who knows when and/or if I'll ever get to it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead and images

Resolved comments

Now that we've finished painstakingly going through this article, it's time to move onto the lead. I have re-written the lead in my sandbox [19] because we've basically re-written the article. Please let me know what you think.

Speaking of, here are the tasks I think we should tackle next: 1) copy-edit the draft, from top to bottom; 2) choose images (I intend to start a discussion about the images I think we should include next); 3) replace the old content with the draft version; 4) bring the new article to PR; 5) bring the article to FAC. I know that we've agreed that the current plot section should go, so my intention is to go ahead and remove it.

Re: images: I can tell you with almost 100% that none of the images, other than the infobox ones, will cut the mustard at FAC. They break most of the images policies because none of them are free. Screenshots are generally accepted in inboxes, so I think the two of Howarth and St. John should remain. All of the others should be removed. (I'm a little surprised that they haven't been removed already; this soap article must have flown under the radar thus far.)

So what images can we use? There are few free images of the important actors. I have some suggestions, though. (See below.) I suspect that this article will have few images, but even FAs aren't required to have them, and the trend these days is to include none if there are no free images available.

• Background section: This image of Susan Haskell [20] isn't the best, but I think it's adequate to place here. The long quote in this section mentions Valentino, Clark Gable, and Humphrey Bogart. If we use one of their images, we can state in the caption, "Todd has been compared to other great villains like ----." Or we can include all of them in a gallery. For Valentino: [21]; for Gable [22]; for Bogart [23].

• "Todd's Theme" section: I found an image of David Nichtern! [24] It looks useful; it's in Commons and even has an OTRS number! This is the first time Nora is mentioned, and we can use this image of Hillary B. Smith [25]. I wonder, though, if it better belongs later, perhaps in the "Redeeming Todd" section, or in the "Reception and impact > General" section, where it mentions her Emmy win. (We can also put the Haskell image there, in a gallery, if we decide to go with the villains gallery above.) I suggest waiting for Smith and placing Nichtern here.

Gotta go, more later. Hmm, there may be more images than I anticipated. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with your draft of the lead, and tweaked it here.

I agree with you on the non-free images, except for stating that "that none of the images, other than the infobox ones, will cut the mustard at FAC." The scar image clearly passes. As you know, we discussed the images before, now seen at Talk:Todd Manning/Archive 2#Images. And I stated there, "Per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images; 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)." I also stated, "...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."

As for the other images, all of them passed the WP:Good article review in 2010 because they were used appropriately, and still are. For example, like I also stated in our aforementioned image discussion, "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." In that discussion, I was reluctant to remove the parrot image, but I'm now willing to remove it, though I still think that it could pass at WP:Featured article review. One of the images that passed the 2010 WP:Good article review has been deleted, as seen at the beginning of the Reception and impact section in the 2010 link in this paragraph.

Regarding your image suggestions, I'm fine with all of those suggestions.

Regarding the Storyline section, I mentioned somewhere above on the talk page that I've been reconsidering including that, since the article will be otherwise missing some of that summary of Todd's life. But we can get back to that at a later date. Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I see your point about the scar image, although it makes me nervous that it's a scan from SOD. But I'm willing to try and see how it flies. To be honest, I've never been all that good at discerning what images are acceptable; it seems very arbitrary to me. That's why I tend to err on the side of caution. I suggest that we test it at FAC; if the reviewers are fine with them, we keep them. I suggest that we put in more images than we think we're going to need and see what happens. I don't think we should keep the Todd execution image; it's small and it doesn't really illustrate anything.

The major problem with the plot section is that it contains only one source [13]. The other two soap character FAs, Pauline Fowler and Poppy Meadow, don't have plot sections. It's true that I don't know enough about them to ascertain if they're missing their life histories, but I suspect that they do, especially the Pauline article, since she was on the EastEnders for 30 years. I don't think that's important; we catch the most important events in Todd's life. At any rate, I'm not willing to budge about removing the plot section. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

More image suggestions:

• "Redeeming Todd" section: I think it's crucial to include an image of Frankenstein (Boris Karloff's [26]), because of the extended discussion comparing him to Todd here.
• "Casting > Howarth": Todd with parrot as per our discussion above.
• "St. John": grungy Todd as per above.
• "Reception and impact > General": Now that I think about it, I think the gallery of Haskell and Smith better belongs here.

Finished final copy-edit and combing for image ideas. Do you think we're ready to cut-and-paste? :-S Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that we should keep any of the non-free images except that scar image. I might be willing to test the parrot image, but not any of the others (the infobox images should be safe). There is no need to keep the St. John "grungy" image, since his look there is not too different than his look in the infobox image. Reviewers would argue that we already have a St. John image and don't need another one unless it significantly enhances the reader's understanding of the text.

As for the Plot section, I'm not adamant on having one for the Todd Manning article. But, like I noted, I've been reconsidering having one. I told you before that, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries, the Plot section usually does not need to be sourced; this is because the film, television show or play serves as the source. I also mentioned that I had been thinking of creating a storyline section similar to the one at the Pauline Fowler article -- meaning with storyline material mixed in with creator commentary and/or critical commentary (similar to what the Todd Manning article already does for some parts). The Pauline Fowler articles does have a plot section; it's just that it's titled Character development and impact; that section also includes an Early storylines subsection. That section documents the character's life, more thoroughly than a typical Plot section for a character article.

By "cut and paste," you mean to the Todd Manning article? Sure, go ahead. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, the Poppy Meadow article clearly does have a plot section; it's the Storylines section. Having a condensed Storylines section like that for the Todd Manning article would be fine; it would simply take some creative work to cut the Todd Manning Storylines section down to what many would consider a more acceptable length. It seems odd to me leave out all those other Todd Manning storyline aspects, especially since the vast majority of fictional character articles have a plot section. The Todd Manning character, while largely defined by his rape of Marty Saybrooke, is about so much more than that and had major storylines outside of that, such as the split personality storyline or the "dead baby" lie storyline (the one about Blair, not about Téa when they were on General Hospital) that we've discussed in the #Characteristics and #Reception and impact sections above. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Whoo-hoo! I can't promise how quickly I'll be able to move the draft into article space, since it's my birthday weekend and we're going out of town for an overnighter this weekend. I might just do it quickly anyway, because I may not be able to resist waiting. Re: the plot section: you make a good case. I think that you agree, though, that the current version is too long. My issue is that the only Todd storylines that I'm familiar with are the ones over at GH and during the online version. As the expert, what storylines do you consider important enough to include? Tell you what: I'll move what we have to article space, without the storyline sections, and leave it up to you to write up a synopsis of his most important storylines. I'm not sure that without the comprehensiveness of Todd's entire biography, it would get through FAC, so I'll wait until that's completed before submitting it. I know you're busy with all sorts of WP projects, so there's no hurry. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy birthday. I'm not sure if today is your birthday or that it will be during some point in the weekend, but happy birthday all the same.

As for a Storyline section: I'm thinking of simply condensing the current Storylines section, rather than choosing Todd's biggest storylines to document. I don't know if I'll ever get around to making a Storylines section for this article that is similar to Pauline Fowler's. Unless it's considered too much plot or otherwise a mess, I don't see why a Storylines section for this article wouldn't pass in a WP:Featured article review, given that, like I've noted above, it's common to have these sections in fictional character articles (in WP:Good and WP:Featured articles included). They aren't usually designed like Pauline Fowler's, and, for the Todd Manning article, there is comprehensiveness given by other sections in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; the 17th is the actual day, but I've always been a fan of the "birthday weekend," especially if it falls near those days. Heck, my kids have had a "birthday week," especially when their grandparents were in town. This is what we'll do: I'll go ahead and move the draft over, give us both a couple of days to look over the finished product, then submit it to FAC. I suspect that the process won't be an easy one, since this is a complicated article. I tend to like to be as prepared as possible for FAC, so that the process is as painless as possible (meaning that the articles I submit tend to only need five reviewers), but I'm anticipating it to not go as smoothly. But you never know what can happen over there, so I may be surprised. At any rate, we'll let the reviewers decide if there needs to be a storyline synopsis section, or if we need to restructure things like I've supported. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. It sounds like you had fun. As somewhat of a coincidence, I just got a belated birthday present yesterday, on Friday. This is weeks after my birthday, but better late than never. I also recently had all traces of my birthdate removed from Wikipedia; I won't be repeating my birthdate on this site. Not having it here helps keep me anonymous.

As for the WP:Featured article reviewers, I don't view the Todd Manning article as complicated enough to be a serious problem during the WP:Featured article review. And even if they stated that we should not have a Storylines section (which is not something I think we should bring up in the WP:Featured article review), it would simply be their opinions; it would not mean that we should not have one or never have one. In my opinion, we should either include a Storylines section before the WP:Featured article review or not at all. Not debate having one in that review; like you stated, "prepared as possible for FAC." If I don't get around to including a Storylines section before the WP:Featured article review, then there simply won't be one during the WP:Featured article review. Flyer22 (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I figure, who else but you will read this here? I can trust that you mean me no ill will, and besides, I haven't had nearly the amount of attacks that you have; I saw that an admin had to redact your talk page again! Yikes! Notice, though, that I haven't disclosed where we went and exactly for how long. At any rate, I'm not saying that we should go into FAC saying, "We know that we don't have a storyline section, yadda yadda yadda." I'm saying that we should go ahead and submit it, and if it comes up, we can say we don't think it's necessary or, if it's an issue, withdraw the nom. I'm not opposed to going through multiple noms if we need to. I want to see what happens and get some feedback from uninterested parties. Perhaps I'll have time in the morning to move the draft; if not, definitely by Monday afternoon. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "who else but you will read this here? I can trust that you mean me no ill will" and " Notice, though, that I haven't disclosed where we went and exactly for how long." As for a Storyline section, I don't feel like writing one yet, but will likely eventually add one. We can proceed to the WP:Featured article review without it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)