Talk:Todd Manning/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

March 24, 2007 dispute

The Real One Returns stop your vandalism to this article --Migospia 22:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've asked you to point out exactly how my edits could be considered vandalism, but apparently you can't answer the question...therefore, I will continue to clean it up from the fancrufty revision that you continue to insert onto it. — The Real One Returns 22:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Where did you ask that? Anyways compare are versions and you will see your vandalism — the following message was left unsigned by user: Migospia

I asked you on your talk page. My revisions were *not* and can not be considered "vandalism" in any way, shape, or form. Your continual repetitious and fancrufty revisions, however can be and if you don't knock it off, I will alert an administrator. — The Real One Returns 23:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. How are your edits legit if you remove valuable information from the page? Migospia 23:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What "valuable information" did I remove from the page? I simply condensed the marriage/children sections into fewer lines. All the same information is there, minus the repetitious debris. — The Real One Returns 23:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism: For one you remove Todd's courtship with Evangeline and Todd raped Marty so she is not a courtship or affair. How is removing this not vandalism, what is your point of your page destruction?--Migospia 23:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Marty courtship thing is referring to his interest in her before he raped her. Additionally, the excessive capitization in headings, etc. is improper Wiki format, and I see no reason to list miscarriages as children, the note seems fine (stillborn and named children are more appropriate to list). I more or less prefer The Real One Returns' condensed version, but maybe you both should step back from this for a day and compromise a bit. TAnthony 23:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, TAnthony. Migospia, I suggest you check again. I did NOT remove the information regarding Marty's rape. The FACT is, Todd and Marty had consensual sex BEFORE the gang rape, so she CAN be listed in the "Courtship/Affair" section. I did not remove that he later raped her. It's still there. And as far as a courtship with Evangeline goes, as of now the two aren't officially a couple...nor have they ever slept together. Her being included at this juncture is a bit premature. — The Real One Returns 23:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Marty and Todd had a one night stand, that is all nothing more, excpet for the rape.

What about REMOVING Todd's courtship with Evangeline are you guys racist are something and how the hell is racism being supported by wikipedia? Nothing but racsim and vandalism here and it is even being approved by wikipedia insane!!! Migospia 23:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh.My.God. Racist? Are you serious?! Okay, this conversation is over. — The Real One Returns 23:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How is this accpeted by wikipedia!? Who the hell manages this rascism and vandalism and accepts it? And why!?--Migospia 23:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, a one-night stand counts as a courtship or whatever. Real One just explained the Evangeline removal and it was not racism, don't be ridiculous. They did kiss and he is interested in her so I was actually going to add that back when I left my comment, but the article is locked. Oh, and you need to calm down a bit, this is not the end of the world. TAnthony 23:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

HEY: Oh.My.God. Racist? Are you serious?! Okay, this conversation is over. — The Real One Returns 23:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That is NOT explaining the removal of Evangeline on the Todd Manning page

Evangeline and Todd kissed more than once and it is known that Todd has been courting Evangeline everyone in Llanview has pointed this fact out.

I am just shocked that such hate is accepted by wikipedia, I thought wikipedia was a good source of factual information I was wrong.--Migospia 23:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is his explanation: And as far as a courtship with Evangeline goes, as of now the two aren't officially a couple...nor have they ever slept together. Her being included at this juncture is a bit premature.

You and I may not agree, but that was his reason, not racism. Come on! Al this talk about "I am just shocked that such hate is accepted by wikipedia" is just silly. I can't believe you are still beating this dead horse. TAnthony 00:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I can not believe wikipedia can allow such hate, and of course his reason is silly with Marty and Todd is considered courtship when he raped her (they did have a one not stand nothing about courtship) and yet it is obvious his feelings for Evangeline, but that was taken out for what reason if it is not rascim?!

And wow beating a dead horse? SICK statment And and is not just you and I because the defenation of courtship fits perfect with Evangeline and Todd

Evnageline and Todd have kissed more than once and both admit they have feelings for eacother it is clear on Llanview Todd's courtship for her--Migospia 00:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• define:courtship

The segment is labeled “Courtships/Affairs.” When 2 people have sex, that is an “affair.” Marty fits under this category because of her and Todd's 1 night fling. - Incognito9810 00:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

EVANGELINE is what we are talking here people!! is her name invisible? EVANGELINE! Wow people...I know Marty can be under affair but Evangeline should be under there for courtship but she was removed over and over again--Migospia 01:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

March 24, 2007 dispute (2)

I have archived the lengthy March 24, 2007 dispute here: Talk:Todd Manning/Archive1. The resolution is below. TAnthony 19:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolution of dispute

OK, this article will never be unblocked if this continues. Allow me to suggest some edits and everyone can agree or disagree with a simple Yes or No vote and perhaps some notes. Then someone can request the unblock and the edits can be implemented. I suggest:

• Courtship/Affairs heading be renamed "Romantic Entanglements"
• Evangeline be added
• Marty remains in this section, but the note (pre-rape) be added after her entry
• Everything else pretty much stays as-is.

I agree but can there be a way to stop stuff like this from happening? It makes Wikipedia look bad and untrustworthy, like a moderator can only protect a page, because if people protect a page with vandalism there that is insane.--Migospia 02:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The page was protected to stop the edit war, and there is a clear note in the protection template that states that the protected version is not necessarily the "correct" one. It could have easily been your version that became locked. If it had been blatant vandalism or profanity, it would not have been kept as is, but it was really just a difference of opinion about a minor point. I think the current system works fine. TAnthony 19:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Votes

Please, no further inflammatory talk and accusations:

• Agree TAnthony 01:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree --Migospia 02:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Agree—The Real One Returns 02:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We all seem to agree, when is the change going to take place?--Migospia 04:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I got the article unprotected, and made the edits. TAnthony 19:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Gave this article an overhaul

• I have given this article an overhaul. It now provides signifcant real-world context, in the form of character creation, writing, and cultural impact. Flyer22 09:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Rape victim?

Why is Todd in the "Fictonal rape victims" category? I remember during his trial in '98 or '99 he alledged sexual abuse by Peter Manning, but he later admitted he lied. Evernut 17:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He was help captive and raped by Margaret Cochran a couple of years ago, which is how she got pregnant with his baby. — TAnthony^Talk 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, Todd never admitted that he lied about the sexual abuse of Peter Manning. It was left as though it seemingly did happen to Todd. He admitted to faking split-personalities, sure. But when Sam Rappaport asked Todd (in a pained way) if it was true that Peter Manning did that to him, Todd, in a hesitant reply (after Sam pressed him further on the matter, and Todd said that it didn't, which seemed to be more about easing Sam's mindset), said, "The truth is a lie and the lie is the truth." And Sam didn't press after that, and they hugged each other, all emotional, as Sam called Todd Boomer (his nickname for Todd), and Todd had tears in his eyes, then left for his plane. Even after that, while Todd was on the plane in his own section by himself, he hallucinated the split-personalities he had made up, and Viki, back at her house, told Sam that she felt that Todd's split-personalities were real after all, and alluded to Todd being able to control them. It was really left as this questioning subject.

Also, Evernut, I watched a little of One Life to Live at the time that Margaret Cochran was around. Todd had an injured leg while she held him captive, an injury she caused and continued to add to, while she had him tied up to a bed, if you're wondering how Margaret could have sexually forced her way onto Todd. Flyer22 18:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for explaining, especially Flyer22 for leaving me the message. I haven't really watched OLTL since about 2000. Wow, this Margaret person sounds mean! I don't believe anyone should be raped, not even former rapists. Anyway, thanks again for the info. Evernut 00:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't really watched One Life to Live since 2003. I must say that I was one of the viewers who were devastated by Todd Manning being recast (still am a little devastated by that). Though I watch every now and then, or keep up by seeing certain recent storylines mentioned. But, yeah, you're welcome. Flyer22 00:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Article is a few tweaks away from GA

The editor who has been running around nominating soap opera articles for Good Article status, noticeably only the ones I've greatly improved, has been wrong in all instances...except this one. Having "studied" fictional character GA articles such as Homer Simpson, fictional character Featured (FA) Articles such as Jason Voorhees, I know for a fact that this is a GA article. It just so happens it needs a few tweaks before being nominated for GA. But in other instances, this article would have already gotten its GA stamp. Sometimes it depends on the GA reviewer. If an article such as Andrew Van de Kamp (even though it had its title yanked) can be considered Featured Article material, then this article (Todd Manning) surely reached GA status months ago.

In conclusion, there is some tweaking that I will continue to do to this article and I want to add some additional references to it, but it already is one of the best fictional character articles on Wikipedia. I honestly say that without bias. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

The review is taking place at Talk:Todd Manning/GA1. Noble Story (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Arrgh, this was nominated for GA again, but this time it actually went through the process? Damn. I had already stated that it was not ready. Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, article is ready for "true" GA review now. Flyer22 (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As I explained on Noble Story's talk page, I've carried out most of his suggestions; I already explained on his talk page about the two references he objected to, which are no longer numbers 6 and 8. I clarified the context of those references, however. As for the long quote in the Character creation section, I feel that it's suitable. It's not as though I have several quotes as long as that in the article.

In addition to his suggestions, I have further expanded the article; the new images I added along with the new text are within Wikipedia policy, since they are aiding the text rather than being merely for show. The article is a lot more comprehensive now. The additions were to the Actors' approach to the character section (now called Portrayals), and to the the Impact and criticism section. An additional reference was also applied to the article's lead, simply because some of what the lead mentions is not yet addressed within the rest of the article. That "rest" would be the Storyline section I plan on adding. I'll get to a storyline section for that article in time, which will be sourced and worded in out-of-universe form. A benefit to that approach will hopefully mean less random contributions adding on to it and making it a long, unsourced plot mess. Flyer22 (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: Since this section, the article has undergone a lot more changes. There will also not be a Storyline section. This article is already too big. I may make a subarticle for the Storyline section. Flyer22 (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Deadlinks

There are two deadlinks that are in the article which I couldn't find anything from web.archive.org:

• http://soapoperasource.com/columns/thevoice/oltl-raping-marty-saybrooke-over-again.html (Ref #30)
• http://abc.go.com/daytime/onelifetolive/episodes/2008/20080611.html (Ref #92)

–MuZemike 18:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I hate when that happens. I will see what I can do right now. Thanks for the heads up. Flyer22 (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and deleted reference 92; it was not needed anyway. Reference 30 is not needed either, but I found the cached version...and added it to the article. Is that (adding cached versions) allowed? I know that the cached version will soon disappear as well, though. So maybe I should just delete that reference right now as well. Flyer22 (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Tea's supposed death

I think that Greg did not killed her at all and that she is going to return in a couple of months alive and well or in a couple of days. --M42380 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she has been seen alive. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Separate articles

I think Todd Manning and Victor Lord, Jr. need their own seperate pages. This page is too confusing as it is. I think some one needs to create separate articles too.99.45.166.113 (talk) 23:46, 16 August

This character will not be getting a character article. A list entry maybe, but no seperate article.. Wikipedia:NN :)RaintheOne ^BAM 00:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Two different characters with two distinct lineages. It's not like Victor, Jr. is a new character, he's been around for eight years. That's pretty consistent and notable right? KingMorpheus (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah he needs his own article.68.97.208.218 (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

68.87.208.218 - Your comment means nothing here. If you want to build consensus - offer constructive reasons to why you think this.

How long have we known this though? I thought someone said it would be best to wait until the storyline plays out, with a clear view. Certainly more real world information needs to occur about them being seperate characters, for starts. Then you'd need to decide if everything that occured when fake Todd was around needs moving a new article. The big problem is that all the development during that period is mentioning Todd and will not have any reference to victor jr, right? So with all real world information tied to Todd.. how would the Victor article pan out?

You've got to assert the nobality of the two being seperate characters in their own right - and think about it in the sense that this is an encyclopedia. As these are not real people and it is a fictional tale at play - the real world perspective is that this character was always Todd - up until now being billed as a different character. So you'd go from the actual creation of this character, which was certainly not eight years ago.RaintheOne ^BAM 19:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

To the first IP, there is nothing confusing about this article in the least. If there were, it would not be GA (Good Article status). Having Two Todd Mannings doesn't make it any more confusing, because there have been two Todd Mannings since St. John took over the role. St. John's portrayal of Todd Manning and everything else should of course continue to exist in this article because he did portray Todd Manning. It's just that he is now portraying Victor Lord, the second. Really, KingMorpheus, I'd think you'd be familiar with how Wikipedia works by now when it to comes to fictional characters, since you are not a new editor, but you still fail to grasp certain things (like WP:COMMONNAME, no matter that it has been explained to you more than once). You answered your own question as to why Victor Lord, Jr. will not be getting his own article. He will not be getting his own article because he was Todd Manning for eight years. I'm not seeing what is so different or distinct about that. There is nothing that can be said about Victor Lord, Jr. that does not significantly overlap with Todd Manning. All of his character history up until this point has to do with him being Todd Manning. And he will not have much time to distinguish himself, since St. John will soon be departing from the role. So bottomline is...this character is not notable as an individual character and thus fails WP:Notability. All that needs to be stated about him, really, is that he was thought to be Todd Manning for eight years and why that is. The most he can have is a spot in the One Life to Live miscellaneous characters article. But Danethomasm (who is a sockpuppet of Dane97) redirected him back here[1] after The Real One Returns removed him from the list.[2] I'll ask The Real One Returns to weigh in here and explain why he or she removed Victor Lord, Jr., but I'm guessing it's for the same reason he will not be getting his own article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh right, I see. Victor is not even sticking around? No chance of an article then.RaintheOne ^BAM 20:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Unless, like I stated on my talk page, the writers somehow change the story to explain that Roger Howarth is Fake Todd. But it doesn't seem likely that the show will kill off/send away the real Todd and keep a fake one instead. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe Victor Lord, Jr. does deserve a separate page. Today, on the show, Irene Manning confirmed that TSJ's portrayal of Todd is a fake, and that Roger Howarth's incarnation is the true Todd Manning. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 20:51, 17 August, 2011 (UTC)

I second that, because they are two different characters therefore they need two different articles... And besides even if he is going to leave in a couple of weeks you still get enough information out the two episodes and I am sure more information will be released soon to make another article. Someone can do the research it's not that hard. Jester66 (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously Jester, you are yet to learn about the many guidelines of wikipedia. You've been here two years, correct? Musicfreak, you may want to reword as you just suggested TSJ's portrayal of Todd never actually happened. When infact it did. The good thing about both of your opinions here is that you have not offered any good reason why this character should have a seperate article. No talk of the characters impact on society since his inclusion THIS YEAR, why is he notable? Where are all the sources?

It is good you mention the research not being hard Jester. Are you going to do that?RaintheOne ^BAM 22:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe my comments claimed TSJ's portrayal never happened, it is simply that TSJ is the "fake" Todd. Never would I claim his portrayal never happened, as I, compared to other fans, prefer TSJ to RH as Todd Manning. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 12:47, 18 August, 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I think it's best you drop the tone when answering somebody's question. You'd think for two people who act so self important over being senior editors for an online encyclopedia they'd try to come off with a little bit of decorum. I asked a question, no need to attempt to talk down to me. We're all people here. I think. KingMorpheus (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel that our tones are terribly wrong, especially when editors who should know better just gloss over our policies or don't seem to understand them. You are just as much a senior editor as Raintheone and I and should be saying the same thing. It's not about self-importance. It's about WP:COMMONSENSE and going by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Musicfreak, refer to what I stated above. And of course Raintheone is right. St. John's portrayal of Todd is not a fake; his character is a fake, as currently written anyway. There is a difference, because he did indeed portray Todd Manning, seeing as he was signed on as that character for eight years. Jester, also refer to what I stated above. "There is nothing that can be said about Victor Lord, Jr. that does not significantly overlap with Todd Manning. All of his character history up until this point has to do with him being Todd Manning. And he will not have much time to distinguish himself, since St. John will soon be departing from the role." Simply put, an article on Victor Lord, Jr. would mostly be redundant to this one and spin-off Todd articles because he does not have an identity outside of Todd Manning other than his name. And he will never have much of an identity outside of Todd Manning, unless the writers make Howarth's Todd a fake and Howarth continues with the series when it is transported to its online format. There is a chance that Howarth could be revealed as a fake, though it seems unlikely when considering his staying on as Real Todd makes more sense than staying on as an impostor. But back to the main point, they don't get separate articles simply because they are different characters. That's not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. There isn't enough research out there to make these two characters distinguishable and Victor Lord, Jr. a notable character in his own right. Characters such as him should be listed at a miscellaneous characters list. And One Life to Live has one with One Life to Live miscellaneous characters.

And, sockpuppets (whether in IP or user form), you need to cease weighing in on this if you are. Stop trying to game this article. We are not that stupid, and you will eventually be got. Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I still think he should have since he is not Todd Manning or at least put him on the OLTL Miscellaneous Character Page.68.97.208.218 (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You haven't listened to a word on this page have you, IP? He was portrayed as Todd. He was written as Todd, so therefore is part of Todd's character. As for accusations of being too stern. No one is being out of order here. Well maybe I lie, a select few are because they are trying to bend wikipedia's guidelines to suit themselves and have a non-notable character have a article created.. I'm just assuming you have read the notability guidelines... well you've been asked to take a look at that enough. He can be mentioned on a misc page, though I'd suggest a good number of references please. Otherwise the character will be contained to a table with one sentence. Look at these for examples [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] - As you can see there has to be a source to get inclusion - otherwise no mention. If you'd like a seperate section then more than five sources is required.RaintheOne ^BAM

The Real One Returns explained why he or she removed Victor Lord, Jr. from the characters list. And per what was stated on that talk page,[8] I have undone the edit and he is now back on it.

Raintheone, we're going to have to keep an eye on the Victor Lord Jr. redirect. Editors (whether IPs or users) keep turning it back into an article. It could have been recreated simply because it redirected to Todd Manning instead of to the character list, but it will still likely need to be fully protected. This edit right here by a new editor making their very first edit shows how people continue to fail to grasp what you and I have stated above. Perhaps it's just a select few, though. For example, I'm sure this editor is a sockpuppet. In any regard, Trevor St. John will need to be watched as well, if people are going to keep absurdly insisting that he never portrayed Todd Manning...in spite of various reliable sources confirming that he did. Once again, people: St. John's character turning out to be the fake Todd Manning does not negate the fact that St. John was on-contract as Todd Manning for eight years. This Trevor St. John section in this article quite clearly shows that he portrayed Todd Manning. It's hardly any different than the fact that he originally portrayed Walker Laurence. All three characters can be attributed to him. This isn't difficult to understand...at all. Stop thinking and writing from an in-universe perspective. Flyer22 (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Once this article is unlocked, but hopefully still semi-protected, I will need to tweak some things...considering that St. John's Todd is now stated to be a fake. I still don't feel that this article is currently confusing, because it's made clear that St. John was "Todd" in Howarth's absence. But things still need to be tweaked due to this reveal, such as making sure that the St. John section addresses the fake Todd issue early on and then leads into how St. John was cast as Todd and portrayed him. I don't feel that we have to mention at every part that St. John's Todd is a fake, but there needs to be some type of rewording in some parts -- the Teenagers manhandled section, for another example. Maybe even just putting the name Todd in quotations marks -- as "Todd" -- would suffice in some instances. Flyer22 (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I took care of the wording this way, now that 5 albert square has changed the level to semi-protection. It's clear that from his edit summary, allowing others to edit again, in semi-protection format, is a test run to see if the same type of problematic editing continues. So, sockpuppets, be aware that you will be reverted and this article will be put back into full protection if it does. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

We really need some other people managing these articles. I'm sorry to say this but the one's who are are doing a pretty bad job at it. Victor Jr. being the son of Victor Lord and reciding in Llanview for eight years isn't notable enough? We've pretty much been looking at Victor Jr. for eight years straight everyday. People are acting as if Trevor St. John just stepped into the canvas. CloudKade11 (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Well if you think you can do better, you are welcome to.. Though I would point out your conflicted view on writing about fiction my be the first hurdle you need to overcome.RaintheOne ^BAM 13:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

CloudKade11, I'll toot my own horn and say if I was never at this article, it'd be a mess right now. It certainly would never have reached Good Article (GA) status. And yet I'm the one doing a bad job? LOL. I believe those of you who mostly write from an in-universe perspective are. You all are using that same type of thought process to claim that Victor Lord Jr. is notable. If you do not understand why he is not notable, despite all of what Raintheone and I stated above, then I don't know what to tell you. Saying "We've pretty much been looking at Victor Jr. for eight years straight everyday. People are acting as if Trevor St. John just stepped into the canvas." is exactly our point about why he is not notable. He does not have much identity outside of Todd. His character history would mostly be about his life as Todd, and yet you feel that he should get his own article? I have to say again that that's not how Wikipedia works. Flyer22 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I still think he should have his own article.68.97.208.218 (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

And? You have offered nothing of reason for an article. Only difference this time is you've chosen to express your POV in big bold letters.RaintheOne ^BAM 03:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I also think I should have my own article.Victor Lord Jr. (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You've created that account to cause trouble.RaintheOne ^BAM 04:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I fee like I am important enough that I deserve my own article.Victor Lord Jr. (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that Victor should have his own article. At the end of the day, he's a different character. Claiming otherwise, regardless of what was believed beforehand, is simply inaccurate. People go on this website for information, and if they were to look up Todd Manning and see that Roger Howarth played him from 1992 until 2003, and then Trevor St. John took over from 2003 to 2011 and then Roger Howarth is now playing the role from 2011 on, they'll naturally come to the conclusion St. John was a mere recast, when in fact he took over as a completely different character - a character who's notability on his own can't really be question because it's all over this article, it's just that his character is referred to as "Todd" as he was believed to be.

This exact storyline took place on Days of our Lives 20 years ago with two Roman Bradys where it turned out the guy who showed up later with a new face and had been him for years was actually John Black. And both Roman Brady and John Black now have their own separate articles, because anything else, like adding Victor Lord Jr.'s existence as a mere footnote in a larger list of characters, is simply inaccurate. --Harlequin212121 (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Read above. What are you not understanding about what is stated there? No one is claiming that Victor Lord, Jr. is not a different character. Are we claiming that St. John portrayed Todd Manning? Yes, because that is true! It's not a claim. He was secretly cast as Todd Manning, as Michael Malone and this article states. He then signed on as Todd Manning. His character being rewritten as Victor Lord, Jr. does not change that. St. John took over the role of Todd Manning from 2003 to 2011. He will always be credited as having portrayed Todd Manning. We mention that he portrayed Todd Manning and the fact that his character was later revealed as Victor Lord, Jr; his character being revealed as a different character in the storyline does not negate that, in real life, St. John portrayed Todd Manning for eight years. What you are saying -- that St. John never portrayed Todd Manning -- is what is inaccurate.

Anyway, why Victor Lord, Jr. will not be getting his own article is clear from above. Your Days of our Lives comparison doesn't hold up because Victor Lord, Jr. has not existed as Victor Lord, Jr. for as long, and there is nothing that can significantly distinguish him from Todd Manning. He fails WP:Notability. It's very simple, really. You should go and expand his section at the One Life to Live miscellaneous characters article, instead of steadily stating here that he deserves his own article in the face of overwhelming evidence that he does not. Flyer22 (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

New Image

Would anybody mind if I uploaded a pic of an updated version of Todd? Soapfan2013 (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the current image, as it seemed a few IPs did as well. It's a better image than his newest One Life to Live opening image, and I don't see a need for a non-opening screenshot either. If Todd looked drastically different now than he did at that time, then I would see a need for a change. Unlike a lot of soap opera editors around here, I go for the better image. Not the newest. Flyer22 (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Besides that, this show won't be on the air for much longer and it doesn't look like the Internet version of it is going to materialize after all. So once the show is officially over, it won't matter in any way which image is the most recent. Flyer22 (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

flyer, will you do something about Llanview Citizen, who keeps changing the image to that new One Life to Live opening screenshot of Todd? it's been rejected by others and you said you prefer the older one too. it's probably a Wikipedia:sockpuppet uploading the image. but maybe he is new, since, if you look at the licensing, the image isn't even licensed to Wikipedia, but to Wikimedia Commons. screenshots aren't supposed to be licensed to Wikimedia commons. maybe the uploader knew what he or she was doing by uploading it there and was trying to keep the image from being deleted, but that image will be deleted sooner or later. and i don't like it because you can barely see what Todd looks like in it. it presents his face as too small, and he also looks better in the older image. 83.172.0.119 (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I've flagged this at the help desk at Wikimedia Commons as I don't think it really is a free image. There was no need to change it unless a free image is found. So I think that is the angle being used here, passing something off as free so they get their own way.RaintheOne ^BAM 00:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If you find my picture unacceptable then stop doing the page a disservice and update it to a recent picture from 2011 for the love of god. Blair Cramer, Starr Manning, Jack Manning, Danielle Manning, Tea Delgado.... all those pages have recent pictures of their portrayers and this page has a picture of Roger Howarth from 2001, THATS 10 YEARS AGO! Makes the page look lackluster. Llanview Citizen (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no valid reason to update the image, per my comments above. The image is from 2002 (during live week, by the way), just as you stated on your talk page, as well as the IP's, before blanking the material, not that a year makes much of a difference in this case. It's simply a better image than his newest One Life to Live opening image. If the latter were a good image, then it'd have already been in the article. Starr and Jack having recent images is not a valid argument because they were small children at the time (Jack was a baby, and is only a teenager now due to the Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome having taken a hold of him), and they therefore look significantly different (although Starr's face hasn't changed much). Todd, however, looks pretty much the same. So I do not see this "disservice" that you do. I do not understand this need some soap opera editors have to go with the newest image, especially when it is not the best one representation-wise. All I can think of on that note is that a lot of you are looking at this from an in-universe perspective. I mean, sure, we use the most recent images for biographies of living persons. But Todd is a fictional character, and the latest image will not matter once this show goes off the air. Flyer22 (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I just invited Alexisfan07 to this discussion, who recently uploaded the new image onto the long-standing image. I reverted because simply uploading the contested image again is not going to solve anything and is only going to result in WP:Edit warring. In this case, changing the image will need to be by way of WP:Consensus. So far, IP editors (either different ones or the same one) have rejected the new One Life to Live opening image of Howarth as Todd Manning. And, as noted, I would prefer that it not be used either. That said, Alexisfan07 did upload a bigger version so that Howarth's face is clearly seen. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I've invited The Real One Returns, the uploader of the long-standing image, to weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I really think that a new pic of Roger should be up there, I mean the pic that's already there is like 10 years old, it needs to be updated. Starr, Blair, John, Jack have all updated pics, so why can't Todd have an updated pic? Soapfan2013 (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Soapfan2013, that argument is not any different than the argument already made, which I responded to.

For those wondering, Alexisfan07 commented on my talk page, where I replied in turn. Flyer22 (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Like I stated there, as a compromise, I'd accept a recent screenshot image of Howarth as Todd, just as long as it is just as good or better than the long-standing image. His newest opening sequence image is not better, in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Soapfan - It doesn't matter who else has recent images - decide on a case by case basis - your WP:OTHERSTUFF does not help the discussion. Wikipedia has policies - You are meant to be here to contribute to an encyclopedia - not a fansite. I don't think the page looks "lackluster" because an image was not taken yesterday (Llanview Citizen's comment) .. An encyclopedia covers the whole time - So I'm baffled how you remotely came up with that notion.Rain the 1 19:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with flyer, I mean I can post a screenshot of Todd an updated pic but it won't be with the opening, but seriously, that pic is like 10 years old, it needs to be updated.Soapfan2013 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with SoapFan, if you feel the recent oltl opening with roger in it is an unacceptable picture then there are plenty of other pictures of him from 2011 or even 2010 that would be more suitable than the one that is being currently used. I just think that with oltl ending soon, a recent picture of the character Todd Manning is necessary as plenty of soap fans will be visiting this page to read about and remember one of the most iconic characters in daytime television. Llanview Citizen (talk) 09:16, 06 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.20.49 (talk)

I still don't see why a recent picture is necessary, per everything I stated above. If he looked significantly different now than he did back in 2002, then, yes, I would see the need for a change. And, really, since "soap fans will be visiting this page to read about and remember one of the most iconic characters in daytime television," the best picture is preferable...not the most recent. But I have already agreed to having a recent picture as the main image, as long as it is a good one. Don't just throw any ole picture of Howarth/Todd up there. Make sure that it is a good picture of the actor/character. Preferably one without him smiling, seeing as "smiling" doesn't gel well with the typical image of Todd. If I disagree with the new image, I'll simply select a new one myself. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Llanview Citizen - You do realise that this is an encyclopedia - these pages are not exclusive to fans, if they are unhappy with what they find here, they can always look him up on a fansite. So an updated image is not "necessary" at all.Rain the 1 00:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Soapfan201, like I stated on my talk page, I don't like the new image, but you get points for trying. I'll upload a different picture later, since that is something I said that I would do if I didn't like the updated photo and because an updated photo will please you and some others. Flyer22 (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

i have rejected the new image, uploaded by Soapfan2013. it throws the whole article off and is not good or welcoming. he looks miserable in it. why remove the handsome image for that one? 218.204.254.118 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently Flyer22 is the sole arbiter of Todd Manning's acceptable image? This is completely ridiculous and Howarth's photo should have been updated months ago. It smacks of people dragging their heels because of petty fannish concerns.69.122.177.0 (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sign in if you are going to criticize me. I already know who are you, so your attempt at transparency is futile. What should be the main image is decided by WP:Consensus, as I've mentioned and linked to above. But there isn't any true consensus for a new image, since sides are divided on the matter. So I stepped up and offered a compromise to stop this edit war between you and others. I agreed to a more recent image, not to any particular recent image. So, yes, if I want to change the image Soapfan201 uploaded to a different recent image, which is something I have Soapfan201's permission to do, then I will. Because it is not violating any consensus and may actually stop this silly edit war that is still going on between you and others. As you can see, Soapfan201's image has not exactly been well-received. The only "fannish" concern I see is yours and those like you who insist(ed) that the Todd image needs to be updated. Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can call concerns about about fansite material "petty" 69.122.177.0 - Flyer is the only one acknowledging that this is an encyclopedia - so I view your attempt at accusing them of owning, a little faulty. I cannot believe the issue here, or the amount of time it is taking to solve the problem..Rain the 1 22:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm flattered you think you know me, but the truth is I've never commented on this issue before, I don't know you and you don't know me. What I DO know, however, is that every time I've looked at this article in the last year it's a train wreck that is all over in the place in terms of character information and background, that it hasn't been updated or formatted since before the "Two Todds" storyline began, and that until very recently you were stubbornly insisting on using an ancient and "too busy" image of Roger Howarth from 2002 - complete with onscreen text - to indicate his Todd Manning. You guys say you care about this character page. Stop jumping at shadows and playing tit for tat and shape it up.69.122.177.0 (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. All you are doing is WP:Trolling and I really shouldn't be feeding you. Yeah, I don't know which of the above editors you are. You just "happened to show up" and make the same argument as another editor with the same snotty attitude. Yeah, we shouldn't indicate with text that it's Howarth in the main screenshot...despite the fact that two people portrayed this role (no matter how absurdly you fan girls try to erase the fact that St. John signed up for and portrayed Todd Manning as well). Yeah, this article is such a train wreck that it's listed as one of the WP:GA (Good articles) and is the article most cited by fans or anyone when pointing people to information about Todd Manning. Suffice it to say, it is the article with the most in-depth information on Todd Manning. The only thing it could need updating on is its storyline information. But oh wait, we already mention the "Two Todds" storyline, which doesn't need much added to it at all, and we don't have a Storyline section because fans like you would have it violate WP:PLOT (like a lot of soap opera character articles) and because most of Todd's storyline history is already covered in the Todd Manning and Blair Cramer article. Yeah, we should listen to a fangirl editor who has no idea about Wikipedia policies and guidelines about how a GA article is in dire need of fixing up, spurred on by that fangirl's disagreement with the use of an image. Excuse me while I bust a gut laughing. There are many soap opera character articles in dire need of fixing up (maybe not even "many," with most of them being deleted these days). This isn't one of them, and it would have likely been deleted by now if I hadn't come along and significantly expanded it with not only detail, but WP:Notability. Like I stated, sigh. Move it on. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Flyer, I'm sorry but you just outed yourself as an overinvested fan, not me. If you weren't exactly that, you'd realize I don't care about "erasing Trevor St. John" at all. He played the role for many years before he got the Roman Brady/John Black-style storyline with Victor Lord Jr. and it's only appropriate that he should be accounted for. That is not my beef. My beef is with the fact that this page is a train wreck, it's not up to date, and that you're trying to hide behind a dubious at best reading of the rules and regulations to keep it pretty static. Take your personal feelings and emotions about the show or the two Todds as a fan out of the equation and look at this thing. Can anyone tell me where I'm supposed to look to figure out what happened to Todd in the last couple years? What about something that at least given Trevor St. John his due as Victor Jr/the Todd recast, give him his own section on this page? The last section has a header about manhandling teenagers, why is that? Give me a break. You're throwing a snit because you're not happy, fine. Don't make the page suffer for it. 69.122.177.0 (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can say the article is a train wreck. If it is just one big storyline missing from the development section, it is not that out of date. If you feel so strongly about it, you should consider writing the section from the real world perspective and include reliable sources. You shouldn't be telling another editor that something they have worked on is a "train wreck" so they'll do it nor should you take "beef" with anything. Civility is the key.Rain the 1 02:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Raintheone. IP, your arguments make no sense at all. You are the one who mentioned that we have text to go along with the image of Howarth's Todd. You are the one calling the article a train wreck when it's listed as a GA article and is in better shape than most of the soap opera character articles on Wikipedia. You are the one saying that the article is out of date simply because it doesn't yet mention that Todd was held captive by Irene for eight years (and, yes, I will be adding that at a later date). You are the one acting as though information about Trevor St. John as Todd/Victor Lord, Jr. is missing from the article when we have a whole section dedicated to it. This article is about Todd Manning, not Victor Lord, Jr. (even with Victor Lord, Jr. having been brainwashed into believing he was Todd for eight years). If people want in-depth information on Victor Lord, Jr, they can click on the link about him, where maybe that information will be expanded. But explain to me how there can be in-depth information of this character when he was living as Todd for eight years? His history is Todd's history. All of this is why there is no section titled Victor Lord, Jr. in this article and is why the character is yet to have his own Wikipedia article. This was explicitly explained in the section above this one. Your comment about the "Teenagers manhandled" section is just as odd. First of all, it's not the last section. Second of all, it's a subsection of the Controversy section, and it's there because it was a significant controversy in Todd's history. St. John was Todd at that time. Your true beef seems to be with the fact that I rejected an image update and that St. John's history as Todd is mixed in with Howarth's in some sections. Well, we aren't going to have two Reception sections, with two controversy sections within that, etc. So you'll just have to deal. You talk about outing, but all you have done is further out your discontent with the fact that St. John's Todd equally shares this article. I outed myself as someone who is overly-invested in Wikipedia policies and guidelines and maintaining the GA status of this article. So funny that you call that hiding. Even funnier that you say I, the experienced Wikipedia editor, have a "dubious at best reading of the rules and regulations" and need to keep "[my] personal feelings and emotions about the show or the two Todds as a fan out of the equation." That's you! You are just too much of a fangirl and are too unfamiliar with the way Wikipedia works to see it! All editors like you, who are convinced that this article should be a fan page, are like that. You are the one who got into a snit about not having a recent image of Howarth's Todd, even though he barely looks any different now than he did in 2002. Um, that screams overly-invested. And you are the one trying to undermine the article and all my hard work on it because of that. Bottomline: Howarth's Todd did not need an updated image, the article is GA for a reason, and if I were really an over-invested fan...I'd likely be concerned with the same things you fangirls are, making the same arguments. But I'm not. I didn't even know Todd was being transferred to General Hospital until I read it in this article and had to tweak it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Flyer, I realize that your obvious anger about the Roger Howarth/Trevor St. John thing is driving you to distraction, but if you actually READ what I wrote you'll see that I never suggested giving Victor Jr. a second article or sending TSJ's character information off anywhere else. I said THIS article, the Todd Manning article, could be cleaned up and to properly delineate and distinguish the reign of the two separate Todds within their respective storylines, from plastic surgery to recast and so on, until they were woven back together for the "two Todds" storyline in 2011 and the second Todd was revealed to be "Victor." You're making this personal on a fan level, because you feel that anyone who might want this article to actually be vaguely coherent and linear to a newcomer, or up to date, is just a "Howarth fan" or "St. John fan" out to belittle whichever one might be your favorite. I don't CARE which one is who's favorite. All I care about is that the article is reasonably up-to-date, and the information isn't, nor was an ancient image from 2002 current (nor, for that matter, was the shot of Trevor St. John from the OLTL opening dating back to 2004, but that's another story). I applaud the ancillary information about media response and character creation, which does certainly allow for it to be a "good article," but that information is not in its proper place in the article, it's flooding everywhere and when I look at it as an outside observer, I am never able to get a clear sense of who played the character when, what happened to Todd in the last several years, who is Victor, and what happened to both of them at the end of OLTL's run. No one is trying to "disenfranchise" Trevor St. John's contribution to the role, and you don't have to "protect" him by standing guard over the article and refusing to even update the main image of Roger Howarth. Get a grip, drop the personal demons, and start working on the article. 69.122.177.0 (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

okay, i'm tired of you trashing on flyer and this article. i don't see anyone being angry here but you (and maybe me for how you are going on). you keep ignoring other responses and are only focused on flyer's, which just shows how obsessed you are with her. well, here's my take. i got the same impression from your comments as flyer did. you said that Victor Lord, Jr. should have a section in this article. flyer responded to that by saying Victor has a section in this article. it's called "Trevor St. John." flyer said there isn't a section called "Victor Lord, Jr." in the article because this article is not about him and he was Todd for eight years. she was saying why there isn't a "Victor Lord, Jr." header, which goes back to the fact that Victor Lord, Jr. doesn't even have a Wiki article. he has no personality/identity outside of Todd Manning. even he said that. he was Todd for eight years and Trevor was portraying Todd. that's why the sources in the article call him Todd.

how do you then take that -- what flyer said -- to mean that she was saying you wanted an article about Victor Lord, Jr.? why do you always twist flyer's words around? apparently, you have a score to settle with her, and all because she may have blocked one of your attempts in the past and because people look to her about what to do with this article. they should. this article is a testament to her expertise on the subject. she is the editor who built it from scratch and got it to rise above every other American soap opera article on Wiki. without question, it is the best U.S. soap opera article i've seen/read. i learned so much about Todd and Roger from this article, stuff that i wouldn't have known otherwise. and i fail to see how it's incoherent. you suggest that the article be cleaned up to properly delineate and distinguish the reign of the two Todds within their respective storylines, from plastic surgery to recast and so on. well, i (and i know many other fans) can attest that the article already does that. you seem to be suggesting that we should have sections called "Howarth's Todd" and "St. John's Todd," and to then have all the information about either Todd under their respective sections. flyer explained why that wouldn't work. for example, there should only be one reception section. to divide the article the way you suggest would make it so that there needs to be two reception sections (one under Roger's section and one under Trevor's section). seriously, why is such division needed? the article is fine as it is. everything is in its proper place. we already know who originated the role and portrayed Todd at whatever time. we are told this in the intro, the infobox and casting and portrayal sections, and which Todd did what is specified through text. the only headings that separate the two are the headings in the casting and portrayal sections, and that is the only area that i see needs division. the background section -- including information about how Todd was created, the scar and hair, music, and redemption -- are obviously going to be more about Roger's Todd. we don't need a header calling it's Roger's Todd for people to understand that, especialy since Trevor shares a part of the scar and theme music material. should we have two scar and theme music sections just to address that? your proposal to artificially split this article is what would be incoherent, and doesn't even follow the way other articles about a character who has been portrayed by more than one person are formatted. look at the James Bond article, for example. that character has been portrayed by various people and you don't see that article divided in the way you are suggesting for this one. that's because all those actors were James Bond. likewise, both of these actors were Todd Manning. what should it matter that one of them is still Todd while the other isn't? they were both Todd at those points in history, and the sources call them Todd. you say you are never able to get a clear sense of who portrayed the character at what point. i ask how is that even possible? you call yourself an outside observer, but you're not. an outside observer would be someone like the British editor (raintheone) defending flyer above, who thinks the article is fine, by the way. you are a fan who has watched this article! and as a fan, you know exactly who portrayed this character at what time. and even if you were not a fan or were clueless about the time frames, the article is coherent about the subject, with the intro, infobox, casting and portrayal sections and other such text telling us. the text says "Howarth," "St. John" and "St. John's Todd," for goodness sakes.

in my opinion, your criticisms, putting aside that there should be more about the Two Todds storyline (which flyer seems to agree with), are baseless. and the only spot that i can see more info about the two Todds stuff going is the recast section, because it's a recast issue, was controversial, and the section already talks a little bit about it. flyer may divide that into a subsection so you can have the "Two Todds" header you so desperately crave. and i don't know what not wanting a good image of Roger traded out for a sucky image has to do with protecting Trevor's Todd. i and others didn't want the image changed either, and i prefer Roger's Todd. flyer has also mentioned that she prefers Roger's Todd. you're just bitching to bitch. the image of Trevor not being updated, for example? hmm, could it possibly be because a lot of the OLTL character articles were using opening sequence images and OLTL was still using that one in their opening sequence? yeah, i think so. flyer shouldn't reformat this article into the multiple redundant mess you are suggesting, especially since you are the only one suggesting it. get a life and stop trying to bring down others.

end of commentary/rant. 218.204.254.118 (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone should open an SPI and request a check user here.Rain the 1 22:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

a wikipedia:SPI? what, on me? the other IP address? the both of us? go ahead. i've got nothing to hide, and it'll flush out the other's Wiki user name. i don't have a user name because i'm not registered. 218.204.254.118 (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it is all a little too convenient all these new IP's talking like long term users. I've seen Flyer say he knows who someone is earlier in the discussion - so the comment is adressed to Flyrer. If someone has posted twice is this discussion - it is a violation. That is all I am saying. I'm an outsider in this convo really - and even to me something is not quite right, I'm not going to point the finger at anyone though - If I am not familiar with any editors of this article, then I'm not in the position to do so..Rain the 1 23:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You want a witch hunt, knock yourselves out. I haven't used my Wiki account in at least a year or two, I gave up trying to make the OLTL character pages readable several years ago, and I certainly have never clashed with Flyer22 to my recollection ever before. You guys can keep putting my words in my mouth if it makes you feel better, but I never suggested segregating or devaluing the Trevor St. John era in any way. All I asked is that the article is updated, makes sense and that the information about the storylines flow a little more linearly and tells us where this character (or in this case, characters) ended up in the last couple years without getting all the "cultural impact" and behind the scenes creation stuff thrown in willy-nilly in the midst of story information. I don't see how firming this article up could possibly do any damage to anyone, except that people apparently take any mention of the recent storylines as a personal attack on their "favorites" and assume it's a conspiracy. I'm afraid none of us get to play favorites on a neutral article. Save it for the message boards. 69.122.177.0 (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

raintheone, i'm not sure how you got the impression that i'm a long-term editor. or ip 69., for that matter. ip 69. sounds like one of those editors who mostly contributed to storylines, with no clue about what it takes to build a good article. if 69. had a clue, then maybe there would be one less soap opera article targeted for deletion. i read that the Starr Manning article almost got the axe. i admit that i barely know what it takes to build a good article. but i know some stuff, and i'm still learning. i never registered because i never needed to. i only add a little material here and there and revert vandalism and inaccuracies. i'm ip . 83 from higher in the discussion. remember, i told you that i watch some soap opera articles, including this one. therefore, there have only been two ips coming back to this discussion -- me and ip 69.x. and what i know is that ip 69. has no business criticizing flyer or this article's layout when 69. has assuredly done no hard work even close to this level and doesn't know how such articles are supposed to be laid out.

ip 69., now you're going to play the victim and accuse others of putting words into your mouth, when you've attacked flyer, her work, and twisted her words? okay, fine. i'll just reiterate that i disagree with you, minus including more Two Todds info. 218.204.254.118 (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thank you, 218.204.254.118. You touched on the points about the article that I would have, and bringing up the James Bond example was most excellent. I believe I brought that up in a similar Wikipedia debate.

Raintheone, IPs usually can't be reported for sockpuppet investigations. Read the part of WP:Sockpuppet about that for why. But if an IP is disruptive enough, that is when they are traced to an account...if they have one. If they are an WP:Open proxy, they are usually blocked once detected (by either a processbot or an editor with WP:Check user privilages). I announced my suspicion of the criticizing IP because it is very suspicious that an IP who has never commented in this discussion or on this talk page before would show up to agree with the criticism regarding the main image not having been updated. I mean, this isn't exactly a high-traffic article. Nor is it a highly-watched article or talk page...at least not by Wikipedia editors. If not someone who already commented in this discussion, the IP would have to be a person who checks this article and its talk page regularly enough. Even then, it's still suspicious because the editor has denied ever commenting here before. And in my experience, such IPs are usually registered editors who have logged out to use their real IP address or a proxy to make it seem like there are more editors sharing their opinion than there are. Or the editors don't have the nerve to say something while logged in, so they say it while logged out to try to give the impression that they are someone else. But since the criticizing IP insists that she (I say "she" because the person hasn't objected to me referring to her as female yet, and most American soap opera watchers are female) hasn't commented here before, there's no use in pushing the issue. I have no idea who the other IP is, but that IP has apparently commented here before the latter one and has properly watched this article longer or more regularly than the latter one.

To the criticizing IP, I have no problem working with other editors to make an article better, and I can take criticism when it is sound/reasonable. That's a huge part of editing Wikipedia, being able to do those things. But most of your criticism isn't sound/reasonable, in my opinion. And by "most," I mean everything disregarding that there should be more information about the two Todds storyline. So I ask that you try to help me understand your criticism, and I'll try to help you understand my point of view. Raintheone is right that civility is key. There is no need for us to be hostile to each other or make any further unsupported assumptions. So let's address your points: You call things in the article out of place. I don't understand that. The creation, casting/portrayal, analysis and reception details are all where they are supposed to be. This article went through three Good article (GA) reviews, two of which were extensive, and one Good article reassessment. You can see the reviews/reassessment at the top of the talk page (the banner) to see what happened. When it was promoted to Good article status in 2010, it was by way of one of the most stern and experienced GA reviewers there is. I can guarantee that if the article had been confusing or "a train wreck" at that time, it would never have been promoted. The article doesn't look much different now than it did then; this is not to say that the article hasn't been updated when needed. It has been, but there is not much to update when there is no Storyline section. I already explained why there isn't a Storyline section. Also see the #GA Review section above for more on that. Since the article does not look much different than when it was promoted to GA, and was not deemed confusing/"a train wreck" at that time, I don't see why it should be deemed such now. All that has changed since then is that the show has revealed that the second Todd is not Todd. But that is a storyline issue and does not negate the fact that this character was portrayed by two people. St. John was not portraying a fake Todd for eight years, and his Todd is distinguished quite well from Howarth's Todd throughout the article. So you're going to have to help me understand your issues with the article's design if you want changes. The "two Todds" changes are already going to be made, so let me explain to you the article's current design:

Per my comments about the GA reviews, and per my own need to make sure things are carefully added to articles, there isn't any cultural impact and behind-the-scenes infomation thrown in willy-nilly in the midst of story information. Are you talking about parts of the article that discuss storylines and then proceed to offer analysis on them? The article is that way because that's how fictional character articles at Wikipedia are supposed to be. Raintheone mentioned "real-world context" to you above. See WP:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction for what we mean. Actually click on that link and read it, before replying again. Don't just ignore the link. Without analysis, these areas in the article would only be plot. The WP:FA soap opera article Pauline Fowler does the same thing as this one. All good or featured Wikipedia television and film articles do the same thing. Let's look at one part of the Todd Manning article for a moment: The "Early writing and literary analysis" title has the words "writing" and "analysis" in it, which tells you automatically what that section and its subsections are about. Yes, they are about Todd's early storylines. But they are not about all of them. Like the title tells us, they are more about early writing and anaylsis. Why not a "Later writing" section? Eh, because it's the early writing that molded and has largely defined Todd, and the sections about casting and portrayals go over the rest of his evolution/writing about him. I'm not sure what you mean by "linear" (it usually means one-dimensional), but we're not dealing with a one-dimensional subject here and the article is in order by its headers, with the exception of "Casting and portrayals"...but that's because how a character was created should come first. For this article, first comes character creation, then comes writing and analysis (which is also about character creation), then comes casting and portrayals (which are also about character creation...but more about the actors' interpretations, and are of course going to include storyline information as well), then comes the Reception and impact section; this is the true cultural impact section. Everything is in its correct place...clearly distinguishing between the two Todds. Reception sections include storyline information as well because they are sections that detail what critics/viewers thought about certain storylines and/or character actions. The only thing messing up the order of this section is the 2010 and 2011 information in its Recast subsection detailing Howarth's return. And now that I think about it, maybe the two Todds information deserves its own section at the end of the Controversy section. It'd certainly put that section back in order. And while Howarth could technically be called a recast, the topic is not about recasting in its true sense. So the move should be fine.

So, IP, I will be adding more about the Two Todds storyline and the above is my explanation for the article's design. If you can adequately explain how you believe it to be confusing/incoherent, I'll see if there is anything I can do to tackle those issues. I'm just truly not understanding the issues you have with the design. This is why your complaint about it comes off more as something mostly based on the fact that St. John's version of Todd was rewritten as another character, and the fact that the article doesn't have a Storyline section. If I were to write a Todd storyline section, it would be like the one in the Pauline Fowler article and it wouldn't be a part of this one. That's because this article is big enough as it is. The Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines is its own article for that very reason.

There is no playing Todd favorites from me on this article. If there was, then St. John wouldn't be treated as equally as he is in this article, since, like the other IP stated above, I prefer Howarth in the role. Flyer22 (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Split

I am proposing that the article be split; though Victor, Jr. was mainly known as Todd, he WAS NOT Todd and both of character have a been involved in significant storylines on the show. Now Todd is on General Hospital and more history is being established for the character. I think the information focusing on Victor Jr and St. John's portrayal of "Todd" who was later revealed to be Victor needs a separate article.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 18:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

They were the same character. We have discussed this before. You think from an in-universe perspective and this is harming the article.Rain the 1 18:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing further to discuss about this, Nk3play2, and I will therefore be archiving this section in a few days or so. This was extensively discussed, as you know, and a split is not valid because most of the information in this article about St. John is about St. John's portrayal of Todd Manning. Not about his portrayal as Todd's identical twin brother. No matter that St. John's character was rewritten to be Victor Lord, Jr., he portrayed Todd Manning for several years; reliable sources will always cite St. John as having portrayed Todd Manning. It's on his résumé. It is not possible to take away St. John's history as Todd from this article without damaging the article, considering that it would be taking away from Todd's history. And by that, I obviously mean that St. John was cast as Todd, there was controversy about him being cast as Todd, there were other controversies concerning his portrayal of Todd. Needless to say, all of that is about the topic of Todd Manning, which is what the reliable sources are discussing. It is only about Victor Lord, Jr. when speaking of the rewrite, a rewrite that not enough reliable sources yet discuss; a rewrite that still shows no WP:Notability for Victor Lord, Jr. as being notable as separate from his Todd Manning identity. It makes no sense to remove all or most of the real-world content, which includes some plot material, about St. John as Todd from this article, put it into a Victor Lord, Jr. article and leave only the lead and/or infobox and plot summary of this article to note that there was a second Todd. Raintheone is correct when stating that you are thinking from an in-universe perspective. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:INUNIVERSE, articles are written from the perspective of the real world, and in the real world the character was originally Todd Manning. The fact that they retconned the character does not change the history, as if you were watching an episode from 6 years ago you would be watching "Todd Manning". That said, this page should reflect the retcon until such time that this "Victor Jr." character has established notability of his own to be split (if that ever happens). You cannot claim "they are separate", but argue that the events that transpired while Victor was really Tood somehow belong to Victor. They were "Todd's" history originally, so you cannot call them the "same" and then cry "they are separate". It's one or the other, and in this case there should be a brief mentioning that the writers (that's the real world context that is required by WP:WAF) chose to rewrite the character's history years later.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

For disclosure, I asked Bignole to weigh in here because I partially designed this article based on his Jason Voorhees design and because he has a lot of experience with fictional character articles and other fictional-related articles. Like Raintheone, he has a lot more experience than me with getting articles to WP:GA status...and has WP:FAs. He has proven himself to be a great consultant on such matters, and I thank him again now for weighing in.

Bignole, yes, the article mentions the retcon and was worded as "St. John's Todd" in a few spots to tackle claims of confusion. I had pointed out, however, that there shouldn't be any confusion about at what point St. John portrayed Todd since this was already made clear in the lead and in the infobox. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)