Talk:List of General Hospital cast members/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Kirsten Storms/Jen Lilley

I just wanted to note that I added a reference to the fact that Kirsten Storms is delaying her return to GH and Jen Lilley is going to continue filling in. I just wanted to make certain on proper Wikipedia protocol in where to place Storms and Lilley at present. Should Lilley be placed in contract, recurring or only stay in Comings and goings? What about Storms?70.83.85.91 (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)samusek2

Storms remains in contract, since she's only on personal leave. She has a serious condition that is preventing her from working. As far as Lilley, she's just a temporary replacement, who I hope becomes permanent. Both remain on the coming/going list, and Storms remains listed as contract. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 03:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Christian Monzon

Look the truth is, Christian Monzon should not be on the list, he was on for one episode back on in April, he's not on the show no more. If I remember correctly when they announced he was coming to GH, they never mentioned him recurring. People just assumed that he was recurring. There is no proof that he is still with the show. The storyline he was involved with is over with, it ended with Ronnie Dimestico. Why have somebody on the recurring list when they shouldn't be there, just because they appeared on GH, that don't mean they are recurring. Christian Monzon should be taken off cuz he's not with the show no more, one episode, that's it. But you get people like "oh there is no word of him leaving the show" I got news for ya, there is no word that he's recurring with the show, maybe it was a one time thing." Hasn't anybody thought of that? No, they all assume that a new actor arrives, they are either recurring or contract. P.J. (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that I did a quick search about this. Almost every source states that he is recurring according to ABC Soaps in Depth. However, checking the ABC Soaps in Depth article, there is nothing in there about him being a recurring character. AniMate 18:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Musicfreak6767 has posted a source to the April 23 Soap Opera Digest that says Monzon is appearing on a recurring basis. He thus far has declined to discuss this here with you. I've asked for clarification on the article, since the date of the magazine is from the week after the characters only appearances. AniMate 20:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's getting to the point, where the article is just WORNG!! He mage one appearance months ago. he was barely more than an extra. i know that no one can seem to find source that says he's not recurring, but can anyone find a source that says he is still on the show???? NO!! he needs to be removed, NOW!!!!Caringtype1 (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The source lists him as recurring. Recurring means you're used when you're needed. And given the state of the show and it's imaging I'm not surprised he isn't being used. But recurring means you're used when you are needed which can be frequent or infrequent. And unless you can find a source that says he's off, he stays. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 20:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

he only been "used" once for ONE scene, on ONE episode. Can you find a source that says as of July 2012, that he is still on the show. I've looked and couldn't find one.Caringtype1 (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The source included on the actual list is a valid sourcing that stated he is on as a recurring character. I don't get why everyone is hung-up on it. People don't appear for months and no one questions it, yet they question this guy? _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 15:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

People question it because he was pretty much an EXTRA, barley any lines, no story lines, and shouldn't be here.Caringtype1 (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well according to SOD, he's on recurring, which means he's used when he is needed. So until a source says otherwise, he remains. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 16:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 July 2012

can I please edit this page.

Blackcat10185 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What edits are you looking to make? You must not be auto-confirmed yet. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 18:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Marking this as answered. If the requester has something specific to request they can reopen or make a new request. 05:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

page is a mess

This page is MESS, NB has been in the "comings and goings" sections for months, and nothing has happened. Christian monzon, bruce weizt, and the actress that plays Tea are long gone but somehow they are still on the list. Come on!Caringtype1 (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Florencia is under contract according to TV Line. If we're playing this game, John Ingle should be removed too since he hasn't been seen since March 2012. But no one questions him? Things are sourced which is what these pages run on, sourcing. It's not a mess, you just wish to make it a mess. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 18:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

John Ingle was dealing with personal issues, and couldn't work, and he has been a constant on the show for years and was never written out of the show. I don't know if Tea is coming back, but if she isn't she just was on a short term contract for a few weeks that ended over a month ago. a source that says an actor is joining a show ISN"T a source that says they are currently on the show.Caringtype1 (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Where's the proof of a short-term contract then? Because according to TV Line, she's in a contract. ABC does not comment on the length of contracts. No one has reported her gone either. So unless you find something that says otherwise, she stays. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 19:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Clean up/sourcing

In an effort to clean up this page a little, wanted to see what everyone thought of a couple items:

• Combining deceased and former cast members? Is the date of death needed?
• Could someone explain the celebrity appearance vs. before they were stars vs. former cast members? Some are listed in more than one place and some are listed only once.
• Does anyone know if soap central/soaps.com are reliable to source on this list?

Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that clean up needs to happen, but I think we need to go further. The recurring section is a disaster. There are actors who haven't shown up for months, and likely won't show up again. Recurring characters very rarely get official announcements that they are leaving the show, and some of these actors clearly aren't working on the show anymore. For example, Christian Monzon showed up for two or three episodes as a plot point in a storyline that hasn't been revisited and he hasn't been heard from since. When was the last time we saw Bernie? There has to be a time limit on these things, because recurring is so ill-defined. There has been a slavish demand that sources must be used, but sometimes sources aren't available. I could easily find a dozen sources announcing recurring characters that haven't appeared for years, but I would be hard pressed to find sources that confirm they aren't filming anymore. It sounds like you are suggesting we use common sense for the sections you've mentioned. Shouldn't we use common sense for all of the sections? AniMate 07:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. The sections I mentioned were just suggestions based off some edits of other cast pages. For recurring, I agree. I think there should be effort first to find sources, but they shouldn't stay on indefinitely. Maybe those types of cases are mentioned here on the talk page briefly to get input? Just a thought. I'm happy to help clean up in any way. Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to continue to clean this up by splitting up the "before they were stars" section and putting the actors either under "former cast" or "celebrity appearances" depending on how long they were on (some are already listed on these sections as well). This category seems a bit subjective to me. Anyone disagree? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No that section belongs here, it is very interesting. If anything, it should be sourced, but definitely not merged. Also the deceased cast members needs to be added back. if I had seen you post that suggested merged it, i would have strongly opposed it. These are very important and interesting sections, there is no valid reason to merge.Caringtype1 (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we try to get some more opinions to see what consensus would be? Personally I disagree. Here are my opinions on the two:

• Deceased: I think it's more cumbersome to have them separated, and some were listed both under deceased and former cast, while others weren't. Maybe there is a different color, or just (deceased) after the actor's name in the existing former cast list?
• Before they were stars: Again I think it's confusing that some are also listed elsewhere and some aren't. There could be a different color for these actors under former cast and/or celebrity appearance, however in thinking that through I feel it is a somewhat subjective decision to label some that category and not others? There would be some obvious yes/no's, but there might be a big grey area.
• Main point - which ever lists we keep I'd like to come to a consensus on what constitutes inclusion in each and whether or not they are included elsewhere on the page (i.e. are deceased members also "former cast" and listed both, or are they moved when they die; are "before they were stars" and "celebrity appearances" also listed under former cast or not). I'm happy to do the legwork once a decision has been made.

Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think why some are listed in two lists and some not is because some are guest short guest appearances for one episode or something , and some were actually apart of the cast. But I think the page is fine, without merging any sections. (Although the recurring section needs some clean up, Seriously Dianne was written out months ago.)Caringtype1 (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kelly Marie 0812 here. Merging and cleaning these sections up seems to be preferable. We're not a fan site and we don't need all of these needless sections. Merging where appropriate means a more streamlined article that will be easier to navigate, and readers will be able to access the information with more ease. Isn't that why we're here? To make things accessible for readers. I'd recommend reading WP:Fancruft. So much of this seems designed for fans, when it should be designed for readers. AniMate 23:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest the removal of the "Before they were stars" section. I think it is pointless - most actors aspire to rise to the top their profession.. but why do we get to determine who makes it there and which are "stars"? POV issues written all over it. This page has already been sitting in the grounds of WP:LISTCRUFT - I'd suggest refining.Rain the 1 09:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess I could agree that "before they are stars" was a little like trivia, but Celebrity Appearances is valuable information, and should be here. The former cast section is for ALL former notable cast, that includes appearances by celebrities, even if they were just guest appearances. "Notable Guest Appearances" is a different section, its not the same as the "cast" section. Everyone listed appeared on the show with the cast, even if it was just a guest appearance or a cameo. They need to be included in the "former cast section", as well as notable guest appearances.

Also the name "Notable Guest Appearances' doesn't fit. For example(there are many), Bridgit Mendler appeared on the show years before she became well known. Her guest spot was in no way notable. Today, however, she is a celebrity, even if she wasn't then, so she would fit under the category of "Celebrity Appearances" because she is a celebrity, and she did appear, but her guest appearance is 2006(or whatever year it was) was not notable.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither title describes her appearance at the time, she wasn't a celebrity when she appeared either. But since she is a celebrity now, that's the reason it's of interest/notable. I'm open to different titles but think the former cast should be those who were formally contract or recurring, and celebrity/notable appearances should be guest appearances that weren't officially part of the cast but are still of interest to be included. When cast members are listed twice for the reason that they are "famous" now, it becomes a matter of opinion. Everyone is in some way famous for having appeared on the show... Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The section isn't called "Former Contract or Recurring Cast Members" is all the former cast that weren't extras. That includes all guest appearances, too. They aren't really listed twice because they are in completely different sections. The first heading says "cast", that is where the Former cast section is. But Notable Guest Appearances is a completely separate heading.If the section is going to be called "Notable Guest Appearances" it can only be for high-proflie very short-term appearances by someone newsworthy. That really doesn't make any sense. the section should be for well-known celebrities, regardless of wether they were recurring or contract, or if it was just a guest appearance.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression from conversations editing other pages that guest/celebrity appearances weren't part of the cast. Either way, aren't all the celebrity guest appearances "high-profile, short-term, and newsworthy"? And they have to be newsworthy anyway or else they don't meet WP:N?

What spurred my interest in cleaning the page up was that the actors were not consistently listed either both places or only once; some were both while some weren't. I don't think the former cast list as it stands right now includes guest appearances as you mentioned. In thinking of which direction to edit towards consistency, I feel there isn't a clear definition of well-known celebrity that isn't mostly opinion-based, especially when the entire content is actors.

Another reason I don't think actors should be listed twice is to keep the article more concise. To be listed twice seems like it should be it's own article then... but I still think it's a matter of opinion on who's more of a celebrity than others. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I think because this is a soap opera, the term "cast' is broader than most shows. So it would include guest appearances. Listing them twice, I think, would make it easier to read for the reader. If a reader wants to know about every actor that has ever appeared on the show, they would look in the "cast" section. But if a reader wants to know specifically about celebrities that have appeared on the show, they can look in the "n.g.a." section. No matter the capacity in which the were on the show, they are all celebrities that have appeared. This is another reason why I don't like the title NGA, the section needs to refer to all celebrities that have appeared. For example, a reader who would want to find Adrienne Barbeua, would be shocked to not find her with the rest of the celebrities. A celebrity would made a guest appearance, was still part of the cast, even if it was very short. this is why they all belong in the 'former cast' section. But celebrities, as debatable as that term is, should also be listed under "celebrity Appearances' because it is information many readers are looking for, and is valid information. As a personal experience I have referred three of my friends who have recently become fans of the show to this exact page, because they wanted to know about celebrities that were on the show, and because I liked the information it provided(recurring cast section aside). But with the page in its current form, i wouldn't recommend it to anyone.Caringtype1 (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The page I was told about cast/not cast was a soap page. I agree that it's interesting to find out that certain actors have appeared on the show, but it wasn't consistent in its prior state, so someone looking for an actor under former cast wouldn't find them and would have to figure out they were under celebrity appearances instead. I think we need to get opinions on what defines inclusion in each section. While interesting, I'm not sure there is an encyclopedic way to note which cast members are celebrity-notable and which aren't. If we can find a way to define that, I think there could be a better way to show it than listing them twice, maybe using colors, etc. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok , I agree we need more opinions on this. So my stance is that we list all celebrities appearances under a section called 'celebrity appearances' , as well as the former cast section. While you think that we should only list them once, and have notable guest appearances be a section for appearances that weren't recurring on contract. I'd like to see where other editors stand to see what would work best.Caringtype1 (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay - related is what defines inclusion in the "former cast" list. If we're going to list them twice then all the actors currently under notable guest app. should be added to former cast as well, while some of them were only on for a few episodes/guest spots. Or special cases like James Franco who was always listed as "special guest star." I've been editing the full character list as well and have noticed some omissions on both pages, so it would be helpful to have define consensus before adding.

I was part of a discussion on the B&B cast page where the other editors wanted to delete the celebrity section altogether stating they were not part of the cast. I disagreed but was outnumbered. However the page has since been reverted/protected so not sure how that will end up. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we need sources for all the regular and recurring actors. It's just cluttering up the page. Natalie47 (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been sourcing as much as I can to take the citation tag off. Do you have any input on the celebrity/recurring/guest/etc discussion? Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I think sources for comings and goings are enough. I mean, no one's arguing that Maurice Benard doesn't have a contract or that Genie Francis was ever on the show. It's a little overkill (and a lot of work) to have a source for everyone who's ever made an appearance. We also don't need multiple sources for one person. For example, there are three citations for Steve Burton's exit. That's not necessary. Natalie47 (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The comings and goings section has faced a lot of scrutiny lately and it's being discussed for deletion, so I think multiple sources helps strengthen the case for keeping it. As for the others I think at least in some cases it helps when there are disputes between contract/recurring and recurring/former. Overall, I'm not clear on sourcing rules for lists to know if they are not needed. If you have feedback on the main topic of this discussion that would be helpful. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Diane

Diane hasn't been seen on screen since February 17, all her story lines have been wrapped up(broke up with Max, quit being Sonny's lawyer, fired from the Sun), she is off the show! we should take her off of the recurring characters section, she has been written out of the show! The source provided is questionable because it has the wrong start date for her(It says 2007, and her section on the 00s page says 2006).Caringtype1 (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried looking for sources that said she isn't doing recurring work with them anymore but couldn't find any. Her website still has a General Hospital section as well. The only source on the 00's page is Soap Central which isn't reliable for cast pages, and says her first appearance is in December of 2006 so it's not very far off from another source saying 2007. It seems that she has a lot of projects going on but isn't necessarily not affiliated with the show in a recurring status. I think in this case we should keep her unless we can find proof she's officially ended her relationship with the show? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the major problem with recurring actors. There is almost never a statement by the show that someone has stopped recurring, and indefinitely keeping people on the list is frankly stupid. I say if someone hasn't shown up for 3 or so months, we can safely take them off. The slavish desire for sources for things that likely will never be sourced is making the article inaccurate. AniMate 20:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not all recurring characters we haven't seen in a while are off the show. Sonny was just talking to Bernie the other day, he can easily appear again, so can Garret Floyd, he now works for Todd, meaning he can appear at anytime. No one should be removed unless we have a source, or they have been written out of the show.Caringtype1 (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You do understand, that by that reasoning any actor who has appeared on at least two episodes and hasn't officially been written out should be included. Two or more episodes is a recurring gig. Any character could show up at any time, so maybe we should track down every character who has appeared in more than two episodes that hasn't officially been written off. Of course we won't do that, because it's silly. It's also silly to pretend that actors who aren't currently filming with the show and haven't been for months are recurring. That section clearly implies that they are currently working on the show and the a lot of those characters are not. Being mentioned does not equal employment, and frankly the idea that we have to list characters that haven't appeared in months and aren't currently filming indefinitely is stupid. AniMate 01:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not what Im saying at all.Caringtype1 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well what exactly are you saying? When an actor stops appearing but without being written off or an announcement, when should we remove them from the list? AniMate 02:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Its different for every actor/character. Which actors specifically do you think should be removed from the list?Caringtype1 (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not different for every character or actor. It can't be, otherwise these silly arguments will go on ad nauseum. We need to come up with some standards otherwise we'll include characters on the list "who can easily appear again" or "can appear at anytime" even though they aren't filming. Tons of characters could appear at anytime, tons of characters can appear again, but that doesn't change the fact that they haven't. A standard of 2 to 3 months without an appearance would make sense to me, so that inclusion on the list doesn't strictly come down to "I think they might show up so I'm keeping them there." What are your objections to that? AniMate 23:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, there is a chance that someone removed from the recurring section might show up later. If that happens they can very, very easily be put back in. AniMate 23:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The 2-3 months things doesn't work at all. Edward hasn't appears in a while, does that mean he's off the show? No, Luke goes on vacation for months at a time, does that mean he's off the show? No, so why are you trying to start an unnecessary argument?Caringtype1 (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start an unnecessary argument, and I would caution you about getting too emotional. As you know, but in your anger at me forgot, both John Ingle (Edward) and Anthony Geary (Luke) are under contract to the show. Because they are under contract, that means it is much easier for us to verify their status with the show, as changes in contracts are always reported. We are talking about recurring characters here. What are your objections to recurring characters being removed from the list if they haven't appeared in 2-3 months? AniMate 00:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Again it depends on which recurring character we are talking about. Its not all the same. For Christian Monzon, I think he should be removed, but Bernie should stay. Remember these are recurring characters, meaning not contract. Just because ether aren't filming the show for a period of time, either short of long, they are still characters on the show.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Your reasoning here is the big problem. You think Bernie should stay because he was mentioned and might show up. Someone else might think Christian Monzon should stay because Dolores is on the show and he might show up. A third person could think that Winifred Leeds (who hasn't been seen since 2009) still apparently works for Spinelli and Sam could show up and so she should be on the list. One could even say that since Heather has been fired from the newspaper and Alexis is her best friend Diane must e left on the list because Todd might give her the job again. The criteria you have for who to include on the list of recurring characters is so arbitrary we might as well retitle it "Characters Caringtype1 considers recurring". I think setting a reasonable amount of time for inclusion on the list is a much better way, because the arbitrary detective work you've used to exclude Diane but keep Bernie doesn't make much sense if we're trying to make a list that isn't ruled by guess work. My time limit approach isn't perfect, but I think it makes more sense. AniMate 00:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

My two cents are to use reliable sources as much as possible. In Diane's case, since soaps.com listed her as currently with the show, and her website had a GH section, and I couldn't find anything that said she was gone despite all the press on other projects she's doing, I left her on. But to that point, I'm not sure on what sources we deem reliable for soap cast lists, and would like to know. I asked here and at WP:SOAPS about soaps.com and gone one response that She Knows Entertainment is reliable, but then someone deleted all the soaps.com references I put in saying they weren't. So my point I guess is that it's difficult to decide what to do without first defining what information counts. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I just don't think there are going to be sources for most of these, and that's why I'm advocating a time limit. I also don't think She Knows Entertainment is reliable for this, because they're cast list is fairly inaccurate. I would just like some criteria other than guesswork. AniMate 01:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

the time thing doesn't make sense at all, the fact is there will never be a source that can tell us exactly the status of each actor, so the current list is the best we could do and there isn't a reason to change that.Caringtype1 (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If the current list is the best we should do and there isn't a reason to change that, why are you trying to get Diane removed from the list? AniMate 02:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

because I think we should remove her. I'm not trying to change the whole system I just think she should be removed.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I know Soap Central is not reliable enough for sourcing within the article, but just for our reference and if it helps at all, this link splits between contract and recurring, as well as this link has the former members. Diane is still listed as recurring, while Eddie has been moved to former. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

My take is you have your regular characters and they are played by actors with a long running contract. You have reccurring cast members who are contract for a period of time as they are required. You also have guest actors who may appear for a select few episodes. The first is reasonibly easy to establish - they are contract and it is usually reported as and when a contract is terminated or the actor decides to leave. With recurring characters that information is not always availible - as has been pointed out in this discussion. So you need to come into agreement of an acceptable time frame to apply to all recurring cast - that when they have been off-screen for the said time - they are removed from the list. 3 months has already been suggested, I think this is a more than reasonable time frame. If there is a source that confirms a recurring role is still ongoing, that they will infact appear in the future but they have not been on-screen for the 3 months - then they are only exception in my eyes. Recurring means ongoing/to keep ocurring and if they do not appear then the term is no longer applied to them in the section which covers current recurring characters.Rain the 1 19:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know is a time limit works. Recurring means that they are used when they are needed. We could not see a character, like Bernie or someone, for three months and then they show up again for couple episodes. We can't remove them, and put them back every time they appear. That's crazy and defeats the purpose of them being "recurring". If we go with a time limit it has to be a pretty big one. At least 6 months, probably more.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both opinions and think recurring in general is a tricky subject. For example, when thinking of Cameron Spencer, he's hardly seen but if they needed him in a storyline tomorrow it would be the same actor. But on the other other hand, you wouldn't want to keep someone on the list indefinitely just because no one published that they were no longer with the show. I agree that a longer time frame than three months should be used, and that all methods of finding sources should be exhausted before taking them off simply for a time frame. Either way, I think the time frame should be defined in the heading/underneath it. "Recurring characters who have appeared in the last 3 months, 6 months, year, etc." which would define the parameters, end the debate, and strengthen the encyclopedic characteristics of the page. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I vote we keep Diane on as the character is still listed on this ABC bio page. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I think if you look recurring up in a dictionary you will find it means something a little different Caringtype1. I think six months is a really unhelpful suggestion. That will solve zero problems, but it may create a bigger problem. Characters that never appear again could be left in the list for six months. Giving support incorrect information for six months. If they show up after three months just add them back. I'm not sure what is "crazy" about doing that - such a minor change - it just takes one minute. So for all those who are stating that recurring is a tricky subject/putting a time limit defeats the objects of recurring. I would say only if you let it, only if you overcomplicate things. There is a simple solution - create a reasonable time frame without a large gap.Rain the 1 20:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying if a recurring actor hasn't appeared in three months, we remove them. But what if they appear next week? we add them back, but then they don't appear agin for another three months. Are we supposed to just removing them and re-add all the time? Do you see how that doesn't make any sense? If we decide to go with a time limit(Not that Im supporting one, but) it has to be around 6 months. Also we have to include the time limit somewhere on the page, like KellyMarie0812 suggested.Caringtype1 (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If they didn't appear for three months and they appear the week after - just add them back. What is the problem with that? I find it lazy to suggest that such a simple edit is problematic. I like how you are not in favour of a time limit but are more than happy to impose a lengthy time limit. We do not have to include the time limit in the article either. We can add a hidden note to prevent disruption - any changes made can have a link to this discussion in the edit summary. This is simple Wikipedia stuff.Rain the 1 20:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So if a character hasn't appeared in three months, but there is a valid source that states they are still affiliated with the show in a recurring status, would they go or stay? Also I do think we should express the time limit somehow on the page or else we'll constantly be reverting edits and referring editors to this discussion. I think if we want to use a time limit then that should redefine the list. It would no longer be a list of all recurring characters, it would be a list of "recent recurring characters" or "recurring characters who have appeared in past three months." I'm not sure if it's worth the time to research, but I think there are characters who often go for more than three months without appearing. I'm thinking of the Webber children, Max/Milo, Coleman, Kelly Lee, etc. Or even Monica sometimes. Personally I don't mind the list being more inclusive than not, since I agree that recurring means they are called upon when they are needed/as storyline dictates. Some are used more than others, some take breaks to work on other projects, some just aren't needed that often. My main goal is to reach consensus, whatever that may be, on the definition of inclusion in each section so the list can be complete and consistent in all aspects (contract, recurring, former, celebrity/guest, and what needs to be sourced). There are a few discussions going on throughout this talk page but none seem to be reaching a decision. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, if a source is available then they should remain. Just add a hidden note and that should avoid contant disruption. When writing an article you do not need to include parts of policy, guidelines or consensus. Articles are for the general reader and not just someone who may edit it. When someone does edit the page they will read the hidden note and understand why a character may not be present. It would be a list of recurring characters. As I have said before - and I may need to be a little clearer - there appears to be a misunderstanding of the word recurring. An online dictionary definition reads: "1.Occur again, periodically, or repeatedly". If a character is not "periodically or repeatedly" appearing, then they are no longer recurring. If we have no evidence to support a reappearance or reappearance has ceased to occur again, periodically, or repeatedly - then they no longer classified as such. One thing I do agree with you on Kelly Marie is that there is no progress being made here. This is a rather simple situation with a simple solution. I have long edited UK based soap operas and there is a sizeable team of editors supporting the subjects. I must say that we have a smooth system. If someone has not appeared for a while, they're gone.Rain the 1 22:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the situation is irrelevant as far as Diane is concerned, since SOD and Michael Fairman have both said that she's filming again. (albeit citing her Twitter feed as a source) Inhan Lagur (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Soap Opera Digest has confirmed that Carolyn Hennesy is taping again. I'll add the source. Natalie47 (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Soaps.com

Does anyone have information/past discussions on whether this is a reliable source for cast lists? I've heard conflicting opinions. Thank you! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Recurring character removals

It has been proposed that any recurring character that has not appeared on screen in the past 3 months (and does not have a reliable source publishing they are still with the show) be removed. Here is what I propose from that, feel free to correct anyone I'm wrong about/use this as a working list.

• John Bolger: last appeared in January, can't find sources - remove
• Ian Buchanan: keep (just returned this month)
• Leslie Charleson: keep (legacy character since the 70s, appears sporadically and appeared this month)
• Derk Cheetwood: last appeared in August, keep
• Drew Cheetwood: last appeared in August, keep
• Jason David: keep (child actor, appears sporadically)
• Sonya Eddy: keep (was on within the past month)
• Richard Fancy:last appeared in 2011? tv.com says he's currently with gh - is that a reliable source?
• Chrissie Fit: last appeared in January, but her website still says she's with GH - keep?
• Blake Gibbons: last appeared in July - keep
• Carolyn Hennesy: last appeared in February, but ABC still lists character, keep
• Marshall Hilliard: keep (appeared in August)
• Sarah Johnson: keep (joined canvas this month)
• Robin Mattson: keep (was on within the past month)
• Rebeka Montoya: keep (was on within the past month)
• Christian Monzon: appeared once in April, remove
• Minae Noji: last appeared in September? - keep
• Haley Alexis Pullos: keep (was on within the past month)
• Ingo Rademacher: keep (was on within the past month)
• Tequan Richmond: keep (was on within the past month)
• Sebastian Roché: keep (was on within the past month)
• Brooklyn Rae Silzer: keep (was on within the past month)
• Richard Steinmetz: keep (was on within the past month)
• Kristina Wagner: keep (was on within the past month)
• Braden Walkes: last appeared in April? My opinion is to keep but I'm having trouble finding a source that's reliable. (child actor, appears sporadically)
• Bruce Weitz: last appeared in July, does anyone know if he's officially wrapped his "haunting" scenes? (character died earlier this year but stayed on as a ghost, was gone for a few months then made one appearance in July)
• Bergen Williams: keep (was on within the past month or two)
• Emily Wilson: keep (joined canvas this month)

Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait - I do not watch this show - so like nearly all of the characters are still appearing on a regular basis? So the list does not change much at all and there was a huge debate made in the above discussion. TV.com won't be reliable unless it is a news story or a video interview.Rain the 1 01:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'm not sure why people are calling this section horrible. The main debate is over Carolyn Hennesy, Christian Monzon, and Richard Fancy I believe. Most characters that haven't appeared in 3 months are child actors or normally appear sporadically. I've added more detail above to give you a better background. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all of them.Caringtype1 (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say keep Fancy and Hennesy but take Monzon off. He only appeared once. Fancy and Hennesy are much more likely to come back. Natalie47 (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid we cannot make decisions based on opinion, characters which editors think are likely to appear again. We state the facts only.Rain the 1 22:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Then we either take them all off or leave them on and keep having editing wars over them. I vote for leaving them all on. Natalie47 (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The main problem is we can't find reliable sources that say they are still recurring, nor that they are no longer recurring. So which side is the fact in that case? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight Natalie47. Your solution is to leave every actor who has recurred on the show on the list indefinitely. Every single actor. Or do you only want to leave the characters you like on the list? Does anyone actually think this is a workable solution? AniMate 00:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a solution, it's a suggestion. We're having a discussion. My next suggestion is for you to drop the attitude. Natalie47 (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is opposing the removal Monzon, or Bolger, correct? I can't find anything on Monzon at all, and nothing on Bolger that's reliable, and both haven't appeared for months. I think they can be moved for a start. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused by the insistence on keeping Richard Fancy. He hasn't been on since 2011. AniMate 01:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't insist either way, just thought the other two could at least go to start since there doesn't seem to be any question on them. I'm fine with removing Fancy too and keeping the rest. I already put Weitz on former when I added him back from being deleted. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

I've found this link on bibliographies that includes a sourcing section that alludes to if the list item has a wikilink to an article that provides verifiability, it doesn't need a citation unless it is likely to be challenged. Does anyone disagree for this article? I propose we keep citations on character that don't have their own articles or section of character list article, provided that page includes appropriate citations. Also I think cast changes should include citations.

For now I am going to take them off the contract cast members since I've gone through and made sure the sources were included on the individual pages.

Thoughts? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

When we have dealt with other lists - we do not provide sources for regular and recurring characters because they have articles or list entries with sourced content. Aside from that because they are current it can be argued that the show itself currecntly acts as a source. Any departures, arriving characters etc - now this is information that can be challenged - it needs to be verified - so a source is always needed for those.Rain the 1 22:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I will start taking them out and make sure the references are included on the page the entry links to. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

For now, I left the sources on a couple of recurring characters I thought might be challenged. I also left them on the notable celebrity appearances section in case inclusion there would be challenged. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Cast change references

I think the cast changes section would look cleaner with a fourth column to house the references. Many other soap cast pages have this. I also don't think "it's never been that way before" is a valid argument against having it. Can others weigh in please? It's not a huge deal but don't see why it can't look a little cleaner. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with a fourth column for references. This section seems to cause the most problems with references, so I don't see why we shouldn't do it this way.Caringtype1 (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Move John Ingle to former?

Hi, I noticed that John Ingle has been removed from current to former several times and then returned. I can't edit semi-protected pages yet, so I'm requesting that he be moved to former. A page on Michael Fairman's site, http://michaelfairmansoaps.com/news/abc-releases-official-obituary-for-john-ingle-ghs-leslie-charleson-frank-valentini-share-their-thoughts-on-his-passing/2012/09/17/ says that his last airdate was on September 11, as he filmed a final scene at his request in August. I don't know if you view Fairman as reliable, but that page includes ABC's obituary of Ingle, so it's good enough for me. Thank you. Inhan Lagur (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just found that same info on ABC's official site: http://beta.abc.go.com/shows/general-hospital/blog/all/John-Ingle-Passes-Away Inhan Lagur (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it using the Fairman reference. Good catch. AniMate 03:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2