Jump to content

Talk:Michael Corinthos

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MICHAEL CORINTHOS

[edit]

DID NOT SEE WHEN PRISONER CAME INTO MICHAELS CELL AND ATTACKED MICHAEL. IN THE ATTACK WAS MICHAEL RAPED? SAW LATER THAT BLOOD WAS BEING DRAWN FROM HIS ARM IN THE INFERMERY? WERE THEY CHECKING FOR HIM BEING INFECTED/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.43.185 (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Nelle Benson listed as a spouse? The marriage was not legal and they were never married.

new info box template

[edit]

Not sure where the appropriate place for this is, but I have to say something about this, and it's being tested here, so...I do not like it at all. it's confusing and makes so sense. What's the difference between 'created by" and "introduced by"? And how is date of birth for a fictional character important, not trivia? And that date of birth is completely incorrect, he was born ON SCREEN in 1997. 'Alternative images" is a redundant, and unneeded heading. "Family" isn't as broad as 'relationships", and is more trivial as it is the character's family within the universe of the show, instead of the character's relationships to the other characters. We should go back to the other template.Again not really sure where this should go, so if it would be more approbate placed somewhere else, please let me know.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is here at WP:SOAPS. A few editors have been testing out the new box, which has been in use for a while with UK soaps. I've also started a sandbox of a version that includes some but not all of the changes, in hopes that might be a good compromise. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Storylines

[edit]

I think with the amount the development section has grown, the storylines should come before this section (so Casting, Storylines, Development, Reception). This way they give the reader a background/understanding going into development, rather than repeating information/filling in the blanks after the fact. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I think the storyline section has been condensed way too much. I know that it needs to be keep short, and can't include every detail. But the way it is now is writing off major story lines in 1 or 2 sentences.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well a lot of is being described in more detail in the development sections... I haven't read through the whole thing thoroughly though. Are there storylines you're concerned about that aren't included in development? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The plot summary is way not up to date, and I am not familiar with the material to be able to do that. This makes it not too useful as a reference source, which is the objective, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recast reception

[edit]

I think we should explain this within the casting sections, rather than revisit it again so late in the article. Any objections? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree; I think it should be discussed in the "Reception" section because it talks about people's response to the recast. I attempted to model it after the Todd Manning article which according to "Wikipedia" standards, is a "Good" article. Also when you look at majority of major articles with "Reception" sections, the sections are usually towards the end of the article.--Nk3play2 my buzz 07:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I agree the reception section should be at the bottom I just felt it was disjointed for the casting and impact of casting to be separate, that was my first impression when reading it. Todd's article has so much info, and to be honest I've never read it in its entirety. Todd's article also has casting down after storyline/development and right before reception. I think its fine for now that was just the first impression I had. I think I thought of this while I was reading comments from Duell and couldn't decide where to put them. It was about how he tried to give Benard distance when he first started because Benard and Garrett had been close, I think it was in one of the articles already sourced here but if not I'll find it again and add it. Anyway, I think this article is doing great and has enough real world impact it could be a GA nom with a little more clean up. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to Michael Quartermaine

[edit]

Per WP:COMMONNAME and the soap opera WikiProject guidelines, characters should be listed by their birth name unless they are/were a married female or decided to change their name of their own free will. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bigpoliticsfan, per the WP:Common name policy, this article should be titled Michael Corinthos; that is undoubtedly his common name. And while it is common to note birth and/or legal names in the leads of Wikipedia articles (for real-life people or fictional characters), the WP:Common name policy does not prefer birth names for article titles. And I don't see what WP:Soaps guideline you are referring to on the birth name aspect. Furthermore, WikiProjects don't have official guidelines. By that, I mean that Wikipedia guidelines are usually more of a general Wikipedia matter instead of a WikiProject matter, even though one or more of them may be strongly associated with a WikiProject; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages. Also, per the WP:Alternative title policy, the birth name and/or legal name and the common name should be mentioned in the lead, so I added the common name back to the lead of the Michael Corinthos article. If Michael Corinthos had several names, such as more than four, it would be best that the alternative names be left in the infobox only and/or in a section lower in the article addressing the names. The WP:Alternative title policy is clear about that. Flyer22 (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Name is Quartermaine Please fix the redirect Jena (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if his parents were listed in the box, not just in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Michael Corinthos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Corinthos&oldid=1203991767"