Talk:Colleen Brady

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

Dates

I think that the story must have taken place in the 1930's, because Shawn and Stefano were both born in the 1920's/1930's which would make them the right age for the story. Roman was also born in 1950 and Shawn and Caroline were married in 1948. Therefore it is impossible for Shawn to be a 7-10 year old boy in the 1950's. The show has also not been specific. They have only stated that the Colleen and Santo relationship happend over 50 years ago. This therefore refers to any time that happened more then 50's years ago. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Santo_DiMera"

  • Please do not assume when adding information to an article. It has been stated both on the show and on the official website that the story is set in the 1950s. In both dialog between characters and interviews with the portrayers, it has been indicated the storyline is being set in 1950s Ireland. Please refrain from adding information you assume and do not know as fact. Assumptions have no place in a wikipedia article. http://www.daysofourlives.com/specials/interviews_detail_2820.html Please see the first reply from Alison Sweeney indicating the story is set in the 50s. IrishLass0128 19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Please STOP adding dates based on assumptions. You cannot assume what you want, you can only go by verifiable fact.CelticGreen 23:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is impossible that the storyline took place in the 1950s and it is impossible that Colleen is born in the 1930s when Shawn, her younger brother, was born in the late 1920s.Grant Chuggle 17:41 10 August 2007.
  • Hi CeleticGreen. I hate the way we are constantly fighting over the page and threatening eaach other. I suggest that we just fill Colleen's birthdate as unknown and write her death as being "over 50 years ago" as this is what the show has stated. I hope you agree so that we can finaly keep the page consistent.
    • I will forever disagree with your assumptions. It was not OVER 50 years ago and I have verifiable proof and you have none. The show has stated the storyline is set in the mid-50s exactly 50 years ago. You are assuming and there are no places for assumptions in this article of the Santo DiMera article.CelticGreen 21:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facts and dates provided are from NBC and their indication that the story is set in the mid 50s. Articles have been submitted as verifiable proof of when the story is set. Your assumptions are vandalism. Wiki articles require verifiable proof, not assumptions. An article from the stars involved which states the storyline is set in the 50s has already been included. For the record, Frank Parker, Shawn Brady's portrayer is only 68 and was no born in the 1920s. It is not your place to assume, it is only an editors place to include verified information.CelticGreen 20:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As dates are unavailable birth and death dates have been removed until a concensous can be reached. CelticGreen 21:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is best. I hope we can get along. And I apologize if I was a pain in the back.
  • According to the NBC website the story is set six decades ago, which is 60 years ago.
  • No, the NBC website does not say that. Please provide direct links if you feel you have proof. For the record, 6 decades ago could be as early as 1956. You cannot add your assumptions to an article. The NBC website specifically says: But, it has been recently discovered that the DiMera and Brady feud extends several decades into the past, far across the Atlantic Ocean, to the country of Ireland. Not six, several. Three or more is considered several. CelticGreen 21:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the link. [1]. Reed the 3rd paragraph.
  • count with me 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 2000 ~ that's 6 decades, 51 years is considered 6 decades. Six decdes is not automatically 60 years, that would be seven decades. No where does it say 60 years. Again, assumptions not based on fact.CelticGreen 15:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Colleen Brady.jpg

Image:Colleen Brady.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image must be kept. It is so nice to go onto an article and see a picture of the character. If it is impossible fir it to be kept then it must be replaced with another image of Colleen Brady. ASAP.

Class

I'm not going to change it, but this is not a B-class article by any definition, it is not comprehensive in any way. Just because it has covered all the plot the character was involved in does not make it a complete and meaningful article. It would be deleted on sight in a real quality review.

This stub would be better incorporated into the Brady family (Days of our Lives) article, as Santo DiMera could be folded into the DiMera family article. These family article can then be expanded to become overviews of the family's involvement in the show over its run and become a home/redirect destination for stubs like Renée DuMonde and Megan Hathaway. The DiMera family is more notable as a whole because of their longrunning involvement in and contributions to the show, and the article could be bolstered with quotes and coverage from Thaao Penghlis and Joseph Mascolo, who have been hired and fired so many times there is surely a lot of great material out there in the press.

For the record, I have started or contributed to plenty of articles even less complete and notable than this one. I hate the idea of soap articles being slashed and deleted but the truth is, notability and article guidelines are very strict and very clear, and most of the soap stuff fails. I personally believe much of this material is relevant and would like to see the restrictions changed. In the meantime, we're just lucky the notability police haven't caught on and nominated everything for deletion. Calling this a B-class article is just asking for it. TAnthony 04:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally rate this article somewhere between "stub" and "start". For further expansion, I'd like to see more real-world context about the character, such as what's been said about her in newspapers or magazines. So far we just have three links to the nbc.com site. Granted, these are helpful, but can we find anything else, such as a profile in Soap Opera Digest or any kind of mainstream mention? To see an example of a high quality soap character article, see something like Pauline Fowler. --Elonka 04:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than rate it a stub or a start or a B class, why not combine the Santo DiMera and Colleen Brady articles and just have one article for both. Both have been a pain to maintain. People have vandalized them and tried deleting them. Since the story has ended and there's really nothing more to add, let's combine the two into a couples page rather than two stubs/starts/not great articles. Tell me how and I'll be more than happy to take care of it.IrishLass0128 12:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a great idea, especially since they are so intertwined and a lot of the info is redundant. But better yet, how about a Brady-DiMera feud page that covers the conflict from the early days up to and including the Colleen-Santos storyline. This might be a home for some extraneous info from the Stefano DiMera article, and that and other Brady/DiMera articles can refer to this new page rather than cover the feud themselves. TAnthony 13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Gods, no! Please, no! As one in the fire at a message board where people use Wikipedia to further their own agendas, please, do not add Brady-DiMera feud as even a suggestion. I beg of you!! Yes, that is how bad it is. You will have fights over the retcon of Stefano, you will have fights over the retcon of how the feud started, you will just have a whole bunch of fights. Believe me, I had to walk away from message boards because of all the fighting. Just thinking about it gives me such a headache and having dealt with and currently dealing with editors who's sole purpose in life is to change articles to their way of thinking rather than consensus, a Brady-DiMera feud page would just cause further problems. In all honesty this "feud" is the brainless-child of Hogan Sheffer just so Ali and James could be onscreen together. Making a couples page would address the pair without delving into the not so finer points of the feud. Additionally, I have a feeling, nothing confirmed, that this whole "ending" and possibly entire feud may be revealed to be the makings of Stefano and the Colleen/Santo story may or may not be real. I believe the story is supposed to be real since Shawn has witnessed it all, but I don't believe the feud has anything to do with it. But, as I said, it's just a feeling.IrishLass0128 14:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be reluctant to have a "couple" page unless we were sure that we had real-world references. Anything that's got a double-name in the title is probably going to be targeted for deletion unless it's well-sourced (we've already had battles at several other "couples" articles). My own recommendation here, would be to add a sentence or two about each character (including a pic) at List of Days of our Lives characters, and then set up this name as a deep redirect to that list: List of Days of our Lives characters#Colleen Brady. Then if more notable information becomes available later, we can easily split things out to a separate article. --Elonka 17:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without a long diatribe about why I disagree with that, I'll keep it short. I don't agree with or like that idea at all. I find that negates all the previous hard work that went into the articles in the first place. IrishLass0128 18:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Composite article?

The Colleen Brady "article" is just a long paragraph with a list of relatives, it would fit totally into a composite article like One Life to Live minor characters or Dynasty minor characters. These are more than lists and the perfect home for stubs and short articles like this one or Santo DiMera. Be sure to incorporate links to notable relatives in the text and you eliminate the need for the infobox or long family lists. TAnthony 18:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than one long paragraph, I should know, I fuss at that paragraph time and time again. It's amazing how such a small article is such a point of contention for those who hate the storyline. Your composite article mentioned would be a solution to many, many character pages I've had contention with over the last couple days. Both Willow Stark and Jed Stark along with Conner Lockhart to name just a couple off the top of my head. Is there a page like that for Days yet?IrishLass0128 18:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easy enough to make! Here: List of Days of our Lives minor characters. If we do a good enough job on it, we could probably even get it nominated for a Featured List. Here's an example of what such a list could maybe look like? List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni. But the One Life to Live format looks good too!  :) --Elonka 19:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Georgia Institute list is quite nice. But how would it be divided? Families would be too difficult -- a lot of the 'minor' characters never really fit into families. (ie. Marlo, Eugenia, etc) Perhaps organisation by year of first or last appearance if known? D'Amico 07:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best way is alphabetical by (last) name, and remember, this wouldn't be a list to direct readers elsewhere, it would be a destination for redirects. But if you do go for the table approach, you should use the <span id="Name"/> commands so that the redirects can point directly to the person on the list. See Dynasty minor characters and Minor characters of Rome for how this is used, or I can help. TAnthony 16:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the link Caress Morell takes you directly to her listing even though she's far down the list. TAnthony 16:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colleen_Brady&oldid=1196299821"