Talk:Passions/Archive 1

Ratings and Renewal Section Negativity

While going through the Passions article, I found this section to be needlessly negative towards the ratings of Passions. Saying it is last amoungst all soaps and has very weak ratings. Can we at least work something (more) positive within this section? And about that rumour of the soap being cancelled and then renewed; is there an official source that can verify this? If not, it should be removed. UnDeRsCoRe 00:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before they were...stars?

What have Molly Stanton, Travis Schuldt, Elizabeth Winstead or Natalie Zea done since they left Passions to qualify as stars? They haven't become film stars or had major roles on popular TV series, as far as I can tell. --JamesB3 06:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with you. Although, I have heard Molly is going to be in a Prime Time show this fall. But Jesse Metcalfe is the only one that has really made something of himself since he left. He was voted by People as one of the sexiest men of the year and dubbed as a "new and rising" star to watch out for. Very happy to see Jesse having such success. --CrazyCarrie06 15:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I left Ryan (since he has a semi-popular sitcom), Jesse, and for now, Molly, and deleted the others. --JamesB3 21:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on one's definition. Travis Schuldt and Natalie Zea both had starring roles in short-lived ABC dramas. They've also experienced a lot of success in the live theatre category. Ryan McPartlin managed to score magazine spreads over his sitcom. Mary Elizabeth Winstead has done a few moderately successful films. I wouldn't have added them personally, but for soap stars, that'd be considered success. Most soap stars don't land one major role in a primetime series -- Schuldt has had two to date. --D'Amico 05:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely true, but many soap actors these days seem to have an easier time breaking into other media ventures than past soap actors. Then there are the actors who have a role in a big movie and then that's it. Ryan's Hope had an amazing young actress named Sarah Felder who was in The Howling. I could put her on BTWS for Ryan's Hope, but no one would know who the heck she was, because The Howling was the only other major project she did. I'd rather see people have a role in successful series or at least become some kind of semi-major celebrity before they are put on the BTWS list. --JamesB3 12:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about non-television or film work? Both Natalie Zea and Travis Schuldt (in addition to each having at least one short-lived ABC series under their belt) have been quite successful in stage work. Not that I'm gonna add them because of that, just because I was curious. D'Amico 00:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the whole section. None of these people are "stars." Molly Stanton is on a horrible sitcom on WB that nobody watches. She's not a star. Metcalf is the only person even close to being a star, as he's on Desperate Housewives, but he's still not a star. He's hardly a household name, and the stars of the show are the four ladies. Even Nicolette Sheridan doesn't get "star" billing on the show. Anybody who reads this article and looks at the "Before they were stars" section will say, "Who?" and then laugh. Politician818 20:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Ethan's name

Should Little Ethan still be listed as Ethan Winthrop, Jr.? I know that soapcentral.com still has him listed as such, but when Ethan and Gwen got back from the compound, I seem to remember Gwen mentioning something about having to return Little Ethan to Theresa because the contract they signed stated that Little Ethan would be traded for a child, and not specifically Ethan and Gwen's biological child. Plus, Little Ethan is back to living at the Lopez-Fitzgerald house with Theresa. So, should we return to referring to him as Ethan Martin Crane, or continue referring to him as Ethan Winthrop, Jr. until further confirmation? Charity 00:35, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

The show has never implied that his name was legally changed back to Ethan Martin Crane. The judge changing his name to Ethan Winthrop Jr. was a separate process from the adoption, even though it took place at the same time. It's highly unlikely Theresa would ever go to court to change her son's name back to Crane -- she would much rather he be Ethan's legal namesake. --D'Amico 12:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

We can change it back to Crane now that he's been adopted by Alistair. -- Kane 20:07, 4 October 2005

His name actually changed altogether. He was born Ethan Martin Crane, then it was legally changed to Ethan Winthrop Jr., but now it's been changed to Ethan Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane (by Alistair, when he adopted him). Odds are it will change again very quickly. soapcentral.com gives a nice list of what he's been and when and why. Good thing this is fiction -- in the real world that kid would be really confused. -- D'Amico 00:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Character Names

Lately there have been a few submissions of 'fake' middle names for the characters. It's always fun to imagine what the character's middle names might be if they had them (very few characters actually do -- some character actually have no middle name), but they shouldn't be here -- Wikipedia is supposed to be about accuracy, not fantasy. -- D'Amico 00:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy's Last Name

Why is Ivy still being listed as "Ivy Winthrop Crane"? Kim Johnston Ulrich is listed as "Ivy Winthrop" in the credits following episodes of Passions, and Ivy herself recently referred to herself as "Ivy Winthrop" while on the phone with Valerie. -- Charity 01:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last time Ivy introduced herself to a character, though, she introduced herself as Ivy Crane. There has been intermittent switches between the two, but there has never been any actual indication of a legal name change. Soap names can be really sticky, but as long as she still uses Crane herself, it makes sense to list her (IMHO) as a Crane.

Cancellation Rumours

What was the point of making a section about cancellation rumours. They aren't even a recent phenomena. The rumours are always rapant and always unsubstantiated. Also, they always seem to based on the fact that Passions is dead last in the ratings. Passions is number one in it's target demograph, as well as a strong performer in the women 18 - 34 demograph. The producers knew that Passions wouldn't get to the top of the ratings immediately, I doubt that they'd cancel it this early in its run. Especially since it's number one in its target demograph.

Obviously, you wrote this a long time ago but the producers don't make the decision on cancelling shows those at the network do. The Producers would want their show to stay on the air. While Passins does well in the 18-34 demo it is not the only demo that is looked at when making those decisions because the advertisers are looking at the other demos as well and don't want to pay top dollar for a show only garnering 1.5 or so in the ratings 03:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Passions opening theme

I'm suggesting a revision for the portion that says Passions is UNIQUE because it has not changed its opening theme. Days of Our Lives has been around much longer and has not changed its opening theme either. So unique is a bit of a stretch.

I'm going to revise or possibly remove that section. Either way, the word unique should not be in there. --Shiaobundan 06:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Not true; Days has the same theme, but it has been re-recorded. Passions is not terribly unique for not altering or recording the theme song or opening montage, as it's only been on the air 7 years. Actually, I wish they would change it, because I'm sick of it.

User:Jericho 19:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Actually the theme for Passions has been tweaked a little (November 9, 2006 episode for example, the full theme was played but the music was slightly different) and sounds a little different than it has in times past although it's still the same song in general.[reply]

Impartiality?

"The reruns have been placed on hiatus as of May 25, 2006, due to the incredible stupidity of Sci-Fi programmers, who I hope read this and bow their heads in shame for removing it in place of their exciting "Knight Rider" reruns."

Let's change this to at least keep the impression this article is relatively bias-free. John D'Adamo 17:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laws of Gravity

So Luis can defy the Laws of Gravity by being able to jump in a hole and "catch" Fancy who was already falling and on a lower level of the mineshaft than Luis. I understand that I must supsend belief (I do that a lot being a pro wrestling fan) but there's no way that an object falling at one speed can catch another object falling at the same speed if they aren't released at the same time and from the same point of release, as in the case of Fancy and Luis. I think this is something trivial worth being put in to the Passions article in the trivia section. 151.213.93.145 19:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation Section

"Because "Passions" is such a strong brand among highly coveted young women it's believed NBC will try to find a way to keep the show alive somewhere other than the network. NBC might want to pitch the show to Disney to see if they would be interested in producing a shortened version of the soap for their SoapNet cable channel. Another potential home might be News Corp.'s MyNetworkTV, though the netlet has had no luck drawing an audience with its cheaply produced telenovelas."

Who wrote this? cheaply produced telenovas? This section is highly biased towards keeping the show on the air. Instead of this section being informative, it instead comes off as being a plea to NBC to keep the show going. Where are the citations? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.220.82.25 (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, I see now that ALL of the text you quoted above is lifted directly from the Variety article[1] I referenced when adding to the cancellation paragraph at the beginning of the article! Should the section be removed altogether? Besides the copyright issues it's just a rehash of the pgh I'm talking about. TAnthony 04:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after reading it again, I was bold and took it out. TAnthony 04:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

Passions January 1-5 2007 ratings

If shows like Passions are considered specials because of the holiday, then ratings for that week should not be cited as an accomplishment. The 18-34 demographic would be able to tune in more because they were home from school or work. Mscooter25 02:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Product Placements?

I noticed that a few advertisements that have been included in episodes of Passions (The Biggest Loser finale, Days of Our Lives)were mentioned throughout the entry. I would suggest a new section, or subsection under an existing one, listing all known product placements in the soap since it has not only been a part of the the show for some time, but becoming more and more obvious in recent episodes (Avon, KY Lubricant, ad for Because I Said So ect.) 66.211.241.246 20:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)MH 02/12/2007[reply]

Done. TAnthony 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation

"....marking the end of over eight years of moderate success and fan adoration."

This seems like more of an opinion than factual.

Done 11:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Mscooter25

Trivia

The following trivia is really not notable; age discrepancies such as these are typical when casting TV, film and theater. TAnthony 18:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Tamargo (Pilar) is ten years older than Galen Gering, who plays her son Luis. She is also only eight years older than Christopher Douglas, who played her eldest son, Antonio.
Eric Martsolf is six years older than McKenzie Westmore, despite the fact that Sheridan is supposed to be about two years older than Ethan.
McKenzie Westmore, who plays Sheridan Crane, is less than one year older than Emily Harper, who plays her niece, Fancy.
Justin Hartley (ex-Fox) is three months older than McKenzie Westmore, who played his older aunt, Sheridan.
Leigh Taylor-Young (Katherine) is only three years older than Ben Masters, who plays her son, Julian. She is also actually nine years older than Sharon Wyatt, who played her older sister, Rachel; Sharon Wyatt is six years younger than Ben Masters, who played her nephew.
Silvana Arias is a year older than her co-star Lindsay Hartley, who plays her older sister.

Not notable, per se, but I admit, I get a chuckle out of the Leigh Taylor-Young and Ben Masters age difference every time. The show destroyed the whole concept of time and space in the PSSN world to accomodate the fact that Taylor-Young and Steinmetz did not look like they were pushing 70, which is what their characters were prior to casting. D'Amico 12:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

"Originally, the viewers of Another World largely held a vendetta against the new show as the stories told were markedly different from the ones they were used to."

I question the objectivity of this sentence. Passions telling stories differently than Another World was not the only reason why fans held a vendetta against it. Using the word "originally" seems to imply that Another World fans eventually dropped their vendetta against Passions, which is not true. There is no way to prove that Another World fans actually became loyal fans of Passions.

````Chris —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.40.227.3 (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The statement in and of itself is opinion rather than fact anyway. There is no documented proof that viewers of AW held a vendetta against the show for any reason. There's no doubt some were upset that PSSN was premiering when the show they watched was cancelled, but there's nothing implying a vendetta. D'Amico 08:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since move To DirecTV

Can we please asses what has happened on passions since its inception to DirecTV?

I typed up some stuff from memory as a start -- Dougie WII 15:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.T. Cornell

J.T. was killed and placed into Chad and Whitney's wedding cake, therefore; he is deceased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1337donald (talk • contribs) 20:48, June 10, 2007

The section is for deceased cast members, not characters. TAnthony 13:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Muellerleile

Is the lady playing the witch from the witches committee that took Endora Marianne Muellerleile? Marianne Muellerleile usually plays Norma Bates and I believe the one witch is Marianne Muellerleile. Jdcrackers 18:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, she is not one of the witches, but she is apparently returning soon for a short run. Not sure which witch you mean, but I think you may be referring to Mary Pat Gleason. TAnthony 04:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TAnthony for giving me the information cause I was thinking it was Marianne... when she says "Tabby Cakes"... it just reminded me of something Norma said... I think Norma, Marianne's character returns July 19... I just love her, she is so talented! Jdcrackers 17:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates and other formats for this article

There are constant date and format edits and reverts on this and many of the soap opera articles, which is a big waste of time and resources and, let's face it, just annoying. The following are guidelines established for this article by either Wikipedia standards or conventions in place over the article's history. Any divergences should be discussed here before implementation to save us all a lot of back-and-forth edits.

Only first letter of section headings should be capitalized, except for proper names, etc. For example, "Comings and goings," not "Comings and Goings." (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Capitization)
Date spans which actors have performed their roles are provided in their individual articles and are considered clutter in the main article. This is established convention can of course be circumvented, but only after debate here.
As "Comings and goings" are current, including the year is not necessary; also, adding "th" to the end of dates is incorrect per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day, as this overrides the reader's preference settings.

Please feel free to add anything else that applies, the constant minor edits are just getting ridiculous. TAnthony 19:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current cast members

There seems to be some confusion as to who is and is not a current contract member of the Passions cast, so I'm going to provide this list taken from the closing credits of the Thursday, June 14, and Friday, June 15 episodes. Unless this can be contradicted by a press release or news article, I think that this list should be what we go by.

Silvana Arias as Paloma Lopez-Fitzgerald
Adrian Bellani as Miguel Lopez-Fitzgerald
Charles Divins as Chad Harris Crane
Cathy Jeneen Doe as Simone Russell
Dylan Fergus as Noah Bennett
Galen Gering as Luis Lopez-Fitzgerald
Emily Harper as Fancy Crane
Lindsay Hartley as Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane Casey
Liza Huber as Gwen Winthrop
James Hyde as Sam Bennett
Brook Kerr as Whitney Russell Crane
Eric Martsolf as Ethan Winthrop
Ben Masters as Julian Crane
Juliet Mills as Tabitha Lenox
Heidi Mueller as Kay Bennett Crane
Tracey Ross as Eve Russell
James Stevenson as Jared Casey
Danica Stewart as Jessica Bennett
Eva Tamargo as Pilar Lopez-Fitzgerald
Kim Johnston Ulrich as Ivy Winthrop
McKenzie Westmore as Sheridan Crane Boothe
Adrian Wilson as Christopher Boothe
Mark Cameron Wystrach as Nicholas Foxworth Crane

Please note that Daphnee Duplaix Samuel is now on recurring and Erin Cardillo has not yet joined the cast. - Charity 04:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Samuel has been recurring for some time now, and the confusion over Cardillo may be because she has signed to be a contract player for the DirecTV run of Passions (which doesn't begin taping until August). But for NBC she is recurring.

And a lot of random IP editors seem to love adding and moving actors around at the slightest rumor, and usually without sources. This is annoying and unacceptable, can we all get a hold of ourselves? TAnthony 04:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arias is gone as of August 15th and was stated in the person as being recurring since her contract ran out in May. Stevenson last aired on July 23rd according to SOD but his name is still running in the credits. Melinda Sward is listed as recurring on here but she said in an interview she signed a contract. 76.16.239.13 21:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main title image

Please note that Image:Passionslogo.jpg was deleted over the last couple of days because it was without a fair use rationale (how'd we miss that?). I re-uploaded and added the proper licensing info, but the version I had was smaller than the previous one. If anyone has the larger one, please update the current file or let me know. TAnthony 02:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Trademark?

I'm not a vetren viewer but in the few episodes I have seen I saw two parts were characters break into song and dance usually revolving around a chracter. This seems like something that is a trademark of the series, why is it not mentioned in the trademarks section? -- 132.203.54.99 00:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theme song and opening sequence heading

"On August 7, 2007 the original full theme song was used, perhaps in recognition of Endora Lenox reversing time in that episode in order to save Luis Lopez-Fitzgerald from his exectuion."

I don't know if that's necessarily appropriate to have that in there. I know for a fact that they also used the longer intro sometime in April and also on July 3. I don't think it's a recognition, really, just that they didn't have enough show and they substituted the longer intro for the new shorter one. So, I ended up putting this sentence in:

"Since then, the longer version of the opening has been seen on several occasions."

Miss Burkle 02:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent/Valerie

Do any of you guys think that Vincent and Valerie are the same person? They are never shown together and since Vincent has had a troubled past it is possible that he has multiple personalities and Valerie could be one of them? That is my theory, just curious as if anyone else thinks this? Jdcrackers 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character Articles Merge

Interested editors should familiarise themselves with the guidelines established for fictional subjects at WP:WAF and WP:FICT. Individual characters deserve their own articles if real-world, out-of-universe notability can be asstered, backed up by third party, reliable and independent sources. Otherwise, the content should be merged to either this page or else the List of Passions characters page & that content should be written to conform to the guidelines linked above. Eusebeus 08:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DirecTV channel 101 has a trivia quiz viewers can play during episodes. On the other hand, DirecTV episodes are not Closed-Captioned. NBK1122 18:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike status

I need a bit of help over on 2007 Writers Guild of America strike; we're trying to list all of the shows affected by the strike and their status of scripts as of now, but I couldn't seem to find anything beyond a soap board post about the status of Passions. In the meantime I've filled in that the status is unknown, but could someone familiar with the inner workings help find out if and when the show would run out of scripts and post it on that article? Thank you. Nate 03:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is from the soap boards too, but it seems like Passions will not be affected, at least for now. -- Dougie WII —Preceding comment was added at 00:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

title song

Do we have anymore information on the title song? I heard it on the radio when i was in Zambia... that was random. But did it chart internationally?Moonraker0022 (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonotable

I've never heard of this show so it has to be deleted. Melbrooksfan101 talk 03:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above user tried to nominate this article for deletion because his articles on a non-notable podcast soap opera have been nominated for deletion. Corvus cornix_talk 03:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

A semi-automated review of the quality of this article was run on and the results are here:

Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/March 2008#Passions

Might be worth a look to improve the quality of the article.

More tips here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Passions/archive1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougie WII (talk • contribs) 22:44, March 13, 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied here: User talk:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers#Passions -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status

Is the status component of the current cast list really necessary? The length of time that an actor has been in a role seems especially unimportant to me when dealing with soaps, where the actor's tenure and the character's run don't always match up due to recasting. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article?

I think with a bit of work we can get this to good article status. If you're interested in making this happen and haven't already done so, please read the comments above in the "Peer review" section above. I think the main problems in our way is the dearth of inline references, some organization issues, and lack of photos. I've worked on all these points but more needs to be done. -- Dougie WII (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review followup

I have looked at the article again and have some followup comments from my peer review. There has been much improvement, but much still remains to be improved.

The lead still does not seems to mention any of the "Trademark" section, at least as far as I can tell. Take the Table of Contents (which is all the section and subsection headers) and read the lead, marking each TOC entry out when you see it mentioned in the lead. What is not marked out should be mentioned in some way, even as a word or phrase. See WP:LEAD

For references I really don't have time to add {{fact}} tags (sorry), but again read the article carefully. Each paragraph should have at least one inline reference. Any direct quotation should be cited (so currently the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences quote on the orangutan nomination is not cited). Any extraordinary claim (best, worst, first, last) and indeed almost any statistic or date should be cited. I will note that the subsections Roman Catholicism through Breaking the fourth wall in the Trademarks section are all uncited. Without it, these will seem like original research. Also said any sort of attribution (indirect quote). Examples One fan favorite was the 2003 spoof of the 2002 film Chicago,...' needs a ref that shows this, or From January 2000 until early May the show remained dead last among all 10 soaps. what is the source? See WP:CITE and WP:V

Fair use images are to illustrate points raised in the article - there are a lot now and this may cvause trouble in GA or FAC unless each very clearly relates to the article discussion and in its caption. See WP:FAIR USE

You show two TV Guide covers - was there no critical commentary in the accompanying articles? Or does Saop Opera Digest publish reviews?

Be careful of tense - I think it is better to narrate plot of previous episodes / arcs in the past tense, but the whole In the early days of the show, Passions heroine Sheridan Crane is identified as a close friend of the late Diana, Princess of Wales; soon Sheridan recalls speaking to Diana on the phone immediately prior to the 1997 car accident which took the Princess' life. should be In the early days of the show, Passions heroine Sheridan Crane was identified as a close friend of the late Diana, Princess of Wales; soon Sheridan recalled speaking to Diana on the phone immediately prior to the 1997 car accident which took the Princess' life. etc. (unless there is some Soap Opera MOS I am unaware of).

Hope this helps, when you think you are done and ready for the next stage, ask for another look over Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input; I do want to note that per [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)], plot summary should be in present tense to stylistically differentiate it from real-world events, though discussing the production or performers themselves in past tense is correct. The example above is really in-universe plot, and so should be in present tense. — TAnthony^Talk 00:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your time, I'm working on trying to find more sources. Cheers -- Dougie WII (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passions storylines

I've been thinking about starting an article on the History of Passions, or maybe Passions storylines. I've noticed that other soaps have storyline history articles, like As the World Turns, Days of our Lives, General Hospital, Guiding Light, One Life to Live, and The Young and the Restless. Passions wasn't on the air nearly as long as any of those soaps, true, but it aired over two thousand episodes, more than any primetime show I've ever heard of, and most primetime shows seem to have "List of insert show name episodes" articles. Anyway, I just wanted to see what you guys think before I start composing the article. Thanks! — Spanish lullaby (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is an extremely late response, but I want to say that I really like this idea. Instead of doing a storyline history article, I think it would be more appropriate and informative to create pages about the summertime extravaganzas since a majority of the storyline information could easily be put into the individual character pages. I honestly believe the attention and focus should be on cleaning up all the pages related to show before adding anything new. I am in the process of updating the Russell family and individual character pages. While this is a good idea, I think the focus should be on expanding and fixing the pages already existing before adding in new content. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muted commercials

Some network affiliates chose not to broadcast Passions (among them KTVB channel 7) but only muted the audio for the show's commercials instead of replacing the network commercials with local advertising. Bizzybody (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Passions. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.expressgaynews.com/2007/11-29/arts/television/
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://soapoperadigest.com/features/passions/features/passionshomagetowicked/
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.soapoperadigest.com/features/passions/features/characterstudy/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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. — TAnthony^Talk 15:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Passions. 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) 16:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Passions. 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) 19:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trademarks?

Why is this section called "Trademarks?" That makes no sense. There is nothing in this section that is trademarked. Do you mean "Hallmarks?" Whatever was intended, "Trademarks" is nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.149.12 (talk) 03:41, June 13, 2020 (UTC)