Talk:Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved to Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane --Elonka 05:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Article name change

{{RFCmedia}}

Reason: Dispute over how to title article for soap opera character. Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane is how her name currently appears in the credits, onscreen and in several cited secondary sources, but she is referred to differently on some other pages. Further opinions requested to help break deadlock. -- 22:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MIDDLE NAME?

A woman's maiden name is NEVER a middle name. The surname section is purposefully misleading and should not appear in the article. A week prior her name was different in the credits but that's conveniently not reflected in the article. The section is grandstanding by Dougie and not relevant to the content of the article. KellyAna (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in many areas of the USA, that is common practice. --- Taroaldo (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not true at all. Name one area WITH VERIFICATION where that is true. Women do not drop their given middle names to take their maiden names as their middle name. KellyAna (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Many women do change their middle name to their married name upon marriage, but I don't think that's necessarily what's been done to Theresa. Soaps love to list out all of their female characters' married names, like Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane Casey Winthrop or Erica Kane Martin Brent Cudahy Chandler whatever, but that doesn't mean that they adopted all of those names as their middle names. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Though definitely not a reliable source, you can see one reference to this practice here. There are plenty of ancedotal references to this practice on Google, so it isn't a figment of someone's imagination. Also name usage examples, in the style of Hillary Rodham Clinton, can be found in any college alumni directory. Please understand that I'm not suggesting that any of these examples could be used as a valid WP:RS to support any position being discussed here. But it cannot be said that the practice does not exist. --- Taroaldo (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old move discussion

Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald → Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane

Image for discussion: Image:Theresa-Memorial-Sign.jpg Screenshot of Theresa's memorial plaque from April 1, 2008, provided by Dougie WII

OK, Dougie got lucky that Theresa just got eaten by sharks! The memorial plaque establishes her in-universe name, and unlike the credits images, I feel this image is more appropriate to be incorporated into the article on its own merits. I believe this is sufficient enough for a move if consensus to do so is reached.

For the record, KellyAna's has suggested here that "She's not dead so a plaque is purposefully misleading. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for an editor to grandstand his opinion. Rm,'d POV." The character's being alive has nothing to do with the fact that her name is now obviously "Crane" in-universe. I have supported your argument about verifiability until now because I was uncomfortable with the use of the credits images themselves (though I did not doubt their veracity). In this unique case, the plaque image would be appropriate in the article even if her name wasn't under discussion, and it's confirmation of the name is just a bonus. In my opinion this does indeed invalidate other sources, even the NBC site.

I'm changing my "vote" to:

• Move, per memorial plaque image (right), and I have eliminated the trivial/POV "Marital status" and "Surname" sections, incorporated the info into the body of the article and removed the credits images. — TAnthony^Talk 02:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Don't Move Why not just go with the convention, which I think is the most common name. Half the time soap characters keep their married name after being divorced and their counterparts have remarried. It's just so confusing. AniMate 03:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for participating, we need some fresh input. Can you expand on why you believe the most common name does not involve Crane? From the discussion above, it seemed to me as though the character had become highly associated with that name for various reasons. — TAnthony^Talk 04:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I really can't. I know very little about Passions, other than Timmy was on it and it has atrocious writing. :P Actually, I've just seen this debate on more than one page, and I assumed the most common name over the run of the series was Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald. If, for the majority of the show, she's known as Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald-Crane, then that should be reflected in the article location. However, we shouldn't move characters articles every time they get married. Think how many moves Erica Kane would have gone through, and she's still best known as plain old (and rapidly aging) Erica Kane. AniMate 04:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

She has never divorced Alistair and is still legally married to him since he's alive even though he's incarcerated. She's referred to Ms. Crane in onscreen dialog, onscreen main story text references and in the credits. What more could anyone want? What more could possibly exist? -- Dougie WII (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Move, and let this be the final move. Sharks? Really? Who writes this stuff... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I have no opinion on whether the move should or shouldn't occur, but I felt that things were getting confusing since there were multiple discussions going on. Therefore, I have archived the older discussions, and recommend that this one be used as a "start fresh" section. --Elonka 05:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Move as nominator. -- Dougie WII (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment ~ aren't you the nominator? This is my issue with it all, Dougie makes comments like "move per nominator" and "closing arguement" when he's the one nominating and what not. KellyAna (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• The nominator is welcome to participate. He can't close the discussion though. That has to be done by someone uninvolved. --Elonka 09:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• As for FINAL MOVE, when the show ends in June or August (I've heard two different dates according to the insert in my bill), the name could again change. If it's left as is, it's reflective of the name she appeared with and had for more than half of the show. There's a policy WP:Common name that says you title the article by the name people recognize the "person" by. The NBC site still lists her without the Crane name. It's about common name which is based on history, and in this case the NBC site, not just what is seen on screen for a nano second. Moving the page is one person's mission, and not based on many criteria. Leave the opening paragraph as "Crane" but moving the article is not warrented. NO, don't do it. KellyAna (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Is that a vote for not moving, then? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment Theresa began using the name Crane as early as 2001 with her "marriage" to Julian, so that has been part of her name for the vast majority of the show. -- Dougie WII (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Question If the character gets divorced on screen and remarries, would the article be moved again? AniMate 09:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Per that image at the top, the character has died. But if they introduced new evidence, my guess is that, yes, someone would attempt to move the article to be more accurate. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to comment - she was presumed dead with no body found, as you can see if you read the article, she wasn't really dead and is alive and well. As they say, "news of her death was greatly exaggerated." On Passions, many, many dead people have come back to life, it's a James E. Reilly trademark. As you can read from this external sourced [1] Theresa is alive and still lying to get what she wants. So, she's not dead was just presumed with no body found. The update from the April 1, 2008 ep is particularly informative where it clearly states they have a memorial service and Theresa watches it making it clear, at least to me, she's alive, not dead. KellyAna (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Move I'm with TAnthony. I think the screenshot is evidence enough, so I support the move (Websites are not always updated straight away, and if the show is ending then it may never be updated properly). Personally, I think that tv characters in ongoing serials should almost always be moved when their names change. I believe we should be reflecting an up-to-date summary of the character's time on-screen; therefore, we should go by what the broadcaster is referring to them as. If the name changes again, then move it again. No big deal. I do understand that moving could cause confusion if the name differs significantly from the last, but in this instance it's just an extra name on the end of her common name, so moving it is even less of an issue. It really should make no difference to readers anyway, as a redirect from their prior name will take them straight to the page in question when they search.Gungadin 13:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: This page was locked for multiple moves; I don't think moving the page back and forth is an acceptable solution. Moreover, if you need to move the page onto a page that already exists, you need an admin to do it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't think she meant to keep moving it back and forth. The problem started when KellyAna moved the article from her married name to her maiden name without anything occurring in the series to justify the move. The article should be moved back to the name used for her in the show (as clearly shown in above plaque) until and unless an event happens on the show that clearly changes her name, something that we can not predict per WP:CRYSTAL at this point. -- Dougie WII (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply - actually, Dougie's statement is misleading. Since September the page has been moved and moved and moved again and I only moved it back to her married name but it did start there, was moved by a Timothy and then moved back by D'Amico and then moved by SpanishLullaby and then, after all those other moves, moved back to the original name by me. A good look at the history will show that I am not the only one to move the page and it was not just me, there is a clear history that the page has bounced back and forth. So to call me out as the only person who has moved the page is false. In the grand scheme of soaps, most of the woman's articles are on their maiden names because they change so often. As witnessed by one screen cap, she was "Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane Casey Winthrop." The one thing that is constant about soaps is that women marry many, many times. KellyAna (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
        • So, I assume the answer to my question is yes. Whenever a character gets married or divorced most of you believe we should continue to move the article rather than have it in a stable location. Is this an accurate summary of your opinions? AniMate 20:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Just as a formatting note, since there seems to be some confusion on what to bold here. The general practice on a move discussion is that each person offers a comment. As a general shorthand (but not a vote), people often put a bolded word at the beginning to summarize their comment. Some people who are making clear that they are not supporting one side or the other may put "Comment" bolded. This "Comment" may also indicate, in a long discussion, that they have already weighed in elsewhere in the discussion. But it's generally not necessary to mark further replies or comments with bold. Or in other words, best practice is normally to make your first statement on the issue to have a bolded "summary" word, but after that, bolding is generally not necessary. See also WP:POLLS. --Elonka 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Reply to AniMate - actually, that is the opposite of what I believe. I believe, and I know Flyer22 would agree, that all women that marry repeatedly should stay at their maiden name. The exception would be characters who have been married many, many years to the same man, but even then, some of them stay at their maiden names. I think it is safest to keep them in one location rather than bounce them every time they are moved. With soaps people will watch for a few years, get bothered by a storyline or new writer, stop for a time, and then come back. Leaving the name as the maiden name is the safest route because people can always find them. And if they are going from an official site to Wikipedia looking for more information, it's best to keep things consistent. It's like Scarlett O'Hara, you don't move her to "Scarlett O'Hara Hamilton Kennedy Butler." That's never used in the book but it would technically sort of be her name in a world where women are forced to take their husband's last name and keep all of their past married names. That's why the WP:Common names policy is a good guideline and most the female soap characters do adhere to that policy. KellyAna (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• (outdent)Sorry for not making myself clear. I know how you feel about this KellyAna, I was just trying to gauge the rest of the editors who are in favor of this move. Am I correct? Should we continue to move this and other pages whenever a character marries or divorces? AniMate 20:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think it depends on the situation. In this case Theresa has used the name Crane for most of the show's run and never used the last name of any other of her "married" names for any significant time. -- Dougie WII (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Has she used the name for the most of the show's run? The show has run for 9 years I believe. Has she been married to Alistair for over 4.5 of those years? If she divorces him before the show ends, will you be advocating another move? AniMate 21:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • She started using the name Crane when she married Julian in 2001. If she divorces Alistair and marries Ethan before the end of the show, then I would support a move to the Winthrop surname. -- Dougie WII (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • So you are moving characters every time they get married. So Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane isn't her common name but Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Winthrop is? Do I have your view correct? AniMate 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Her name is Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane until it isn't. If the show ended today it would be that forever. It would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to take into account any suspected future events. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I agree about the crystal ball. However, you seem to be arguing for keeping a running move cycle on every soap character who gets married. Can you not see how that would get a little problematic? Do you think we should've moved Erica Kane every time she was married? And when I say Erica Kane I really mean Erica Kane Martin Brent Cudahy Chandler Roy Roy Montgomery Montgomery Chandler Marick Marick Montgomery. We need to have some sort of stability in these articles' locations. If you're advocating another move to Winthrop should they get married, than I would argue that Crane isn't her common or stable name. Lopez-Fitzgerald is.
          • You seem to be advocating a never ending cycle of moves. Naming conventions exist so that we have articles in stable locations. If the position you advocate becomes the standard, am I to assume that you are going to go through every single female soap character's bio and move all of them to the appropriate current married name and continue to move them depending on when/if the character gets married? That's what you would have to do. AniMate 22:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't know about any other soaps as the only one I'm interested in is Passions so I can't comment on those other characters. The only thing I know is that Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane is her name and since the show is ending in August, there won't be a neverending cycle of name changes, it will be what it is on its last airdate. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

I went ahead and threw in a section break to make navigating this discussion a little easier. Dougie, you say you're only interested in Passions which I think is short sighted and unfair. Naming conventions, policies, and guidelines exist to help improve all articles, not just the articles you care about. We need some uniformity and we need some stability. Forget that Passions is being canceled. Let's say they signed a contract with NBC to air for ten more years. Are you arguing that every time a female gets married or divorced that we need to continue to move her article for the next ten years? AniMate 22:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see why not, redirects will work to guide someone to the correct page if they enter an old name. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, we don't have to reprint with every change. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason why this is a bad idea, is because you have created a standard for characters on Passions that the rest of Wikipedia will not be willing to follow. I can't find a single show where the contributors have agreed to move whenever a character gets married. You've decided that it's more important to go with current name rather than common name, and that is quite problematic for me. If that is your aim, I think we need to take this to a much wider audience and have something put into our naming conventions to reflect your position. AniMate 22:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is about this article. Her common name is "Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane" because that's what everyone calls her onscreen and what she calls herself. If someone gets married but still goes by their maiden name, then their common name would be their maiden name but that's just not the case here. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dougie, this discussion isn't taking place in a vacuum. Yes, it is specific to this article, but I think taking it to a wider audience would really help nail down naming conventions for all television characters who go through multiple marriages. If the name she is best known by is "Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane" then the article should be moved there. If you want to move it again when/if she remarries, then it is not her common name and the article should stay where it is. I'm really not sure which is her common name, though it sounds like you've decided "current name" equals "common name", and I don't think that is correct or necessary. I am going to be asking for some input at the policy pages, which should at least help us pin down whether we should constantly be moving pages every time a character gets married. AniMate 00:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There may not be a cookie-cutter solution for every female soap opera character. Despite claims to the contrary, Theresa has only been legally married once and has never divorced. This is not a policy discussion but a discussion on this single character's name which I've given far more than ample evidence that it's Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane. If you disagree, then fine, but obviously continued discussion about this here is only clouding the issue. -- Dougie WII (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is clouding the issue at all. This is in some ways a policy discussion as well, since it's going to help us with future naming conventions. I really don't know who is right here, and by continuing to discuss this and its ramifications I think we can make some sense of this. However, you seem as quite dug into your position, and frankly it is impossible to reach any type of consensus with someone who is "right" as opposed to someone who has an opinion. Now, you are very certain that Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane is her common name. I get that. I'm not opposed to that being where the article is located. However, if she remarries and you want to move the article again, the Crane goes from being her common name to her current name. Now you can argue that current names are always or at least usually common names. Just because a debate feels cyclical, doesn't mean its pointless. I'm more than willing to change my mind about things, and hope you're as open as I am. That's all I'm really trying to say, and I really hope you don't try to stifle good faith debate here. AniMate 01:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If she got married to someone else with a different last name before the end of the show, I said I'd support a name change because that's the end, her name can't change again. If the show continued, I'd certainly want to wait to make sure that name had staying power. -- Dougie WII (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen this issue discussed and debated on several soap character articles, and though I like article stability and minimal moves, it seems necessary to rename/move an article when a character remarries and uses the new name. Soap characters may remarry a lot, but it is not so often as to be that disruptive. It also seems to me that the shows establish the name the character will go by very quickly, so there shouldn't be much debate. Characters like Harley Cooper ("Harley Aitoro" for a long time) and Jessica Brennan (up until recently, "Jessica Buchanan") have been moved as they marred and divorced, and the world didn't end.

I believe Erica Kane has always called herself (and been referred to as) Erica Kane no matter who she was married to, whereas over the years Viki Davidson has always used her latest husband's name (often with her maiden name "Lord" in between) during the marriages and even after she has been widowed (three times!). It may seem weird to change a character's name when they are newly married and we don't know how long it will last, but if the new name is in use on the show, it seems logical and appropriate to change it. In the particular case of this article, Theresa has indeed been married to Alistair for years, and we know she has used the name as much as possible to cement her control over the estate.

Before this started I felt that "Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane" was the "common sense" name of this character. However, KellyAna and others prefer her maiden name, and as the official website and other sources supported that, I agreed that technically the "Crane" did not withstand such a challenge. This new image establishes her in-universe name without a doubt. And what is the big deal to move it now and perhaps have to move again within a few months? Two moves is no big deal, guys. In general however, I feel like the "group" should be able to quickly decide on a common name for these characters based on common usage within the series without the necessity of some official source. It is just a name. The frustrating thing about this particular discussion is that until the image came up, both "Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald" and "Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane" were acceptable names (we're not trying to call her "Theresa Durkee"), but supporters of both have been stubbornly debating back and forth ad nauseum. I am respectful of both sides of the argument, and the editors that debate them, and yet amazed that this debate persists.

As this discussion goes on and on, I am less and less able to understand the argument behind using only the character's maiden name. It seems like with every "proof" of "Crane" that is presented, the opposing argument changes tactics to keep the name out. I don't have some huge issue with keeping the article name as-is, but the "Crane" just seems more correct and I am baffled by the resistance. I am myself vigilant about sources, but we're talking about the way a character is addressed, which can change within the same episode depending on who's saying it, as opposed to an unchanging fact like a plot point. The married name issue seems, in general, unlikely to be challenged by most people as long as we are not asserting a completely false name. What is the big deal here?? — TAnthony^Talk 03:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Consensus appears to have emerged in favor of the move. I don't agree with it and am opposed to i, but I'm certainly not going to argue against it forever. AniMate 23:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So do we finally have a consensus here? -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As an outside party, I think we do have consensus. Mike H. Fierce! 05:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.