This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
On 15 August 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved. The result of the discussion was move.
I normally would never even consider something like this because the character is so new; but I think it's worth considering. I started a sandbox for the character just to keep track of coverage. I didn't realize it until now, but there has been extensive coverage of the character since the casting call and I've been building on the article in hopes that the information would be approved for a later date. Because there has been so much coverage of the character, I believe the character merits his own article. I am only considering this because the press rarely pay this much attention to newcomers unless they're recast of an already established character; the last time I remember this much coverage of a brand new character was when Dominic Zamprogna came to General Hospital as Dante Falconeri. I'd really like some opinions about this.--Nk3play2my buzz21:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess if there is more attention to this character it should be a separate article, speaking of which I think Sonny Kiriakis also deserves a separate article. Jester66 (talk)
I completely agree about Sonny Kiriakis, but I haven't had time to start a sandbox for him. I've also found another instance in which a character article was started just 3 days after a character's first appearance, with the EastEnders character, Ray Dixon, because there was so much attention on the character. I mean Wikipedia is about notability.--Nk3play2my buzz21:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure whether or not this is a good idea at present. There does appear to be a nice amount of information in the sandbox you created. But there is an issue and it is a hot topic on Wikipedia. A lot of the content consists of quotes and that may need to be changed before it is moved. Over using quotes (WP:QUOTEFARM) and plagiarism are considered copyright violations and can cause articles to be blanked with immediate effect. The "Casting and creation" section is okay and does not have any issues. But the characterization, Cane and Lily sections all have quotes. There already two large quote boxes so those sections may need some paraphrasing. Obviously there has been a lot of work been put into this article and it is on its way. This is just a minor issue - I noticed an instance of reference stacking from the line "Williams had been cast in the role of Tyler Douglas" - now because those sources all support this claim, only one is actually needed. It is not a controversial claim and the Entertainment Weekly article is fine as single source. As for Ray Dixon - that started as a sandbox and was moved into the main space at a later date [1].Rainthe 122:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everyone's comments here - it seems the notability is sufficient in what you've compiled, and that paraphrasing the quotes in the characterization would be a good idea. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there is a lot of information on this character doesn't mean he merits his own article just yet. He's very new. My opinion is to wait awhile, and then create if necessary. Creativity9702:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is just too soon for him to warrant his own page. I'd say give it a month or two, and then reevaluate when the character has established himself more, and there is a more clear picture about the future of this character, and for a chance to build up this section with more sources.Caringtype1 (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Tyler should not have this own article. He has barely had any storyline. He may have notability online but on the show hasn't done much yet. Plus in your sandbox, there are two huge quote boxes. Try to avoid this. I say, you don't want to get his article into a huge un-manageable size so don't use every single quote you see. Wait a few months after his storyline actually develops more. Arre03:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a character that only began appearing a few days ago, there's quite a fair bit of info around for him. I was initially undecided whether the character should be split off from the list or not, but I think following Caringtype1's advice would be best. Although, I created and moved Vanessa Villante after a month because she was given two big storylines straight away, which generated a lot of development info. - JuneGloomTalk16:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
