Talk:Bianca Montgomery/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mess

Article is a real mess, the kind I don't have patience to clean up. The prose needs to be less conversational and more formal. Juppiter 03:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

When I have time! I am will edit this article! And take out some of the exclamation marks! Hdstubbs 01:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up. Hdstubbs 03:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

? Renouncing lesbianism ?

Bianca never declared herself bisexual.As far as I know Bianca is still supposed to be a lesbian.Until Bianca declares herslef bisexual or indicates that she is also attracted to men I think the latest passage should be removed.

The above was written by another IP address, but I agree with the comment, and have reverted the edit back again. It appears that it was a typo, or possibly that the person reverted it back and forth twice. There is no mention on the "4/5/2007 episode" (from the edit recently reverted) that the character of Montgomery has "renounced" her homosexuality, to become a bisexual. Interesting argument, interesting thought, but as commentary rather than fact, it's beyond the purview of this Wikipedia article. May I politely suggest that the editor who made the change consider writing a piece for "Eye on Soaps"? But until the day that the fictional character arrives on screen and publicly announces that she is no longer a lesbian, because she fell in love with a transgendered person, it's commentary, not fact and certainly not "NPOV". 67.10.133.121 10:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a NPOV should be maintained. The acceptability of a relationship between a lesbian and a transgender woman is, of course, controversial to some but that is outside the purview of this article. ZadieA 15:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Gave this article a complete overhaul

• I gave this article a complete overhaul. This article needed that. And while the plot summary of this article is probably best to be cut down on, though this is a long-running character, so maybe the plot summary is fine as it is now, this article now provides references (reliable references), and this character's real-world impact. Flyer22 23:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Rating

• Judging from the Damien Spinelli article and other articles, this article is no longer Start-Class. I have changed it to B-Class on its WikiProject Soap Operas tag. I will wait for another editor to change the other two tags on this article to be B-Class as well. Eventually, I may request that another editor or two editors rate this article, in which will be the second time for the other two tags of this talk page. Flyer22 05:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Length - discuss

Hello folks. This article seems to be exceptionally long and rather too detailed for what is essentially a fictional character. What are other people's opinon? Please discuss this is a rational, unbiased manner and maybe we can reach a consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.163.186 (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not too long. I've removed your "too long" tags again. No consensus needs to be reached because policy is on my side. The only time an article may be deemed too long on Wikipedia is when the article itself says so while editing. Bianca Montgomery is not just a typical fictional character, but rather a highly notable fictional character. And most highly notable fictional characters have a lot of information to be addressed regarding them, such as Pauline Fowler. Flyer22 (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I point out that there is no policy that says that fictional character articles should be shorter than others. I also point out that the featured article Pauline Fowler (mentioned above) is longer than this one, and that (in fact) articles, on fictional subjects or not, have a better chance at becoming Featured the longer they are. If this article were one long plot summary/mess...like the Jason Morgan article...then I would get your point about length. But this is a comprehensive, in-depth article of reasonable length, length that has not even reached Pauline Fowler's length yet. Cutting any portion of this article in a significant way , including the plot summary, would be taking away from important information about this subject. Flyer22 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you point out the policy that states articles are only too long if the article itself states that it is too long? Editors make these judgment calls all the time, and I've never seen one of the "too long" tags reverted without some general discussion. Knowing your antipathy towards tags, I'm not surprised you reverted them, but really discussion should occur before we remove tags like that. AniMate 00:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Which part(s) do you feel are too long? what do you want to cut and why? If you are talking about tightening up/improving the prose by removing superfluous wording etc then that's one thing, but if you're talking about deleting valuable out-of-universe information merely because you think the article is too long, then I would definitely object to that. Plus, I dont feel it's too long anyway. The more information the better as far as i'm concerned, and as long as there's no repetition then I don't see the problem.

The only time when it's appropriate to cut down on info is when the plot summary is overly long and there is little real world information to support the article. This article has tons of valuable real world information; the plot summary is by no means the majority of the article. That the article is about a fictional character is irrelevant. All articles should strive to reach a similar standard of greatness if possible, no matter how trivial anyone may deem the subject, and that includes in-depth analysis where appropriate. Otherwise what's the point in covering fictional topics on wikipedia at all? This character appears to have had a huge impact on US popular culture, so it's appropriate that the article is detailed.Gungadin 01:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

AniMate, I was responding to the fact that no article is deemed too long unless it goes over the article size limit. Policy actually makes clear what is acceptable article size. This article is one of those. If you have seen editors deeming articles too long when the article itself has not even suggested that, then they are acting wrongly.

Are you actually suggesting that the IP address above me is correct? I mean, this is far from being about my not liking tags. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly think there's an argument to be made for saying the article is too long, and that we don't just get to dismiss an opinion because the software hasn't thrown out an automatic warning. And no, people aren't acting wrongly when they suggest an article needs to be trimmed for conciseness and clarity. And yes, too much detail is sometimes a problem. If you disagree, then you need to head over to Wikipedia talk: Notability (fiction). This IP is pretty tame compared to what some of the people over there want to do with fiction articles. I mean WP:PLOT lays it out there, and this plot section is pretty long. As for the cultural impact and other aspects, I think they're fairly well written. However, we do not remove tags without discussing it first. That's something you really need to hear, because when you do it, you give the impression that you own the article. It's rude, it bothered the hell out of me when you did it to me and I'm sure the IP likes their opinions dismissed no more than you do. AniMate 01:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the IP because I see no argument that can be made on the IP's part whatsoever, for the reasons I and Gungadin have given above. Editors are surely wrong to deem an article "too long" just because they feel it is, and especially when it's mainly based on the fact that this is a fictional character. It's laughable to suggest that this article should be deemed as "too long" when we have featured fictional character articles such as Pauline Fowler (and others) that are longer. I know Wikipedia policy like the back of my hand, which includes its policy on article size. This IP is simply wrong in this regard. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And we do remove tags without discussing it first...when the tags are completely unjustified. But if you and the IP would rather I bring in others on this, like TAnthony, then as you wish. Flyer22 (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Gungadin's points are well articulated. Gungadin:Which part(s) do you feel are too long? what do you want to cut and why?

Flyer22:No, it is not too long. I've removed your "too long" tags again. No consensus needs to be reached because policy is on my side...If you have seen editors deeming articles too long when the article itself has not even suggested that, then they are acting wrongly...I reverted the IP because I see no argument that can be made on the IP's part whatsoever.'

Where in the world would someone get the idea you have ownership issues? Discussion is a key part of collaboration, even if that means discussing something you "know" is wrong. I've discussed things with you in my heart I know I was right about. However, we couldn't get reach a consensus so I let them go. I didn't dismiss and revert, I talked about it. The IP had valid concerns and since you know the rule like the back of your hand then you know we shouldn't ever stymie good faith discussion just because we disagree with it. Or are some of the parts about collaboration and consensus written on the side of your hand.

And your little threat to get your gang aside, I'd love to see TAnthony come in here, because he's willing to talk things out. Frankly, for me this is more about your shitty attitude then about what the IPs possible points are. AniMate 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. AniMate, you are the only one here with a "shitty attitude", with your suggesting that I've ran off to get "my gang"... If you check, that IP committed vandalism along with his tags. I revert vandalism. Often, IPs will add tags for vandalism reasons or out of grudges. I had no reason to believe this IP's edits were out of good faith, especially with his (or her) antagonizing edit left on the Supercouple talk page. Seeing you practically side with this IP, given our history, is what is frustrating. I have nothing more to say to you on this subject.

My reverting mess, which I know is wrong, is not deeming owernship; it's cleaning up. Flyer22 (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And, Bignole, thanks for showing up per request. Flyer22 (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the "no shit" vandalism, but I saw the insertion of valid tags as well. You hate when people add {{cite}} tags and {{fact}} tags to articles you've worked on. Was the {{shorten}} tag necessary? Probably not, but hiding behind vandalism fighting as an excuse not to discuss things is crap. Frankly, I'm disappointed that you can't see how dismissive your comments to the anon actually were. AniMate 02:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one hiding behind anything. And it can easily be said that that IP was hiding behind good faith policy by adding those tags after vandalism. The tags were not valid, as mentioned above, and plenty of editors would have done the same as me. I watch several fictional character articles, and know for a fact that others would have done the same as me. I really do not care if you are disappointed in me, as I am sure you do not care for my disappointment in you. You call it dismissive; I call it justified.

Now, as stated before, I really have nothing more to say to you on this subject, and have other matters to attend to. Anyone who check's this article's edit history knows that I already have plans to further fix up this article. I watched Bignole get the Jason Voorhees article to Featured status and his work has been very helpful, such as when I fixed up the Todd Manning article. I know what this article needs, and will take care of it. This is not about tags, and I mean no conceit. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's stop with the new subsections with every response. The article size is fine, but I do agree that the quote boxes are unnecessary...at least they shouldn't be centered and widened to the width of the page. Just as well, there should not be two sentence paragraphs. There needs to be a lot of paragraph merging to create more complete paragraphs.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Flyer22, I suggest you get a life. You do not own these articles and should not remove tags without proper discussion just because you don't like me. Why are you are you so scared about discussion on some second rate soaps that no-one outside the USA care about? Try and get some perspective, please. And your citations aren't always correct, so don't write me messages telling me to read citations properly. If you took your own advice, there wouldn't be messy articles you "own", such as ones I'm discovering like List of Supercouples full of dodgy citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.163.186 (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh...I have a life. I am not on Wikipedia 24-7. I am not the one coming to Wikipeda articles bitching and moaning about them, like you are. Just because you have some hate-on for articles focusing on fiction. Yes, I will remove tags without "proper discussion" when the tags are placed by an antagonizing IP. Editors here revert all the time without discussing, especially when they use edit summaries to explain why they are reverting. And they most certianly revert IPs who seem to be only stirring up trouble with tags after direct vandalism, which also appear to be nothing but a grudge. Again, I suggest you read Wikipedia policy, something you are obviously not familiar with. My citations are correct. Twice you did not read them to see that you were wrong. I have never stated that I hated you. If anything, it can be suggested that you hate me, because I reverted your dead-wrong edit to List of fictional supercouples. What then? You went after articles I have greatly improved? None of the articles I have greatly improved are messy. They were messy before I got to them. Messy includes articles like Carly Corinthos, Jason Morgan, EJ Wells, etc. Why do you not go focus on the articles that really need help, like those? The articles I have significantly expanded need tweaking, not some serious help. You have been wrong on every account you have tackled with what I edit, as you were completely wrong about the Supercouple article as well, which is full of valid references and as the article is completely true. Just because you see supercouples as some fantasy does not make anything in that article any less true. Yes, supercouples started off deep in fantasy. But now the term even applies to celebrities. Fact. Not some original research, made up garbage. Get off my back. Your criticsm is faulty at best. I suppose the Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer article that I fixed up from solely being a plot summary is "messy" as well? If you had it your way, these articles would be plain and mostly plot-induced with a little information about what the writers intended for the characters, if anything at all. Just because a lot of the articles are mainly known to American audiences does not make them less important to have the amount of work done to them (as I have done) just because you want them to be simple loads of crap. The same goes for articles like Pauline Fowler, which some would say are only important to people in the United Kingdom. All Wikipedia articles should be the best that they can be, and your suggesting that this article is too long simply because this is a fictional character and has thorough and important information regarding her creation and impact is laughable and one of the reasons the majority of fictional character articles on Wikipedia are in such a crappy state right now. There is nothing "second rate" about this character or my work on this article. Leave and go attend to articles that really need serious help.

And, Bignole, yeah, sorry about the unneeded subsections. It is that I am sometimes editing through the PlayStation 3, which does not allow me much editing freedom, and then sometimes editing from a computer. I'll combine these subsections now. Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

First, per WP:SIZE you only need to worry about an article when it is reaching 60kb (i.e. "60 KB - Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)"). Now, just looking at the bare size of the article, it sits at 48-50 kb. That isn't 60 kb, but may give you a reason to think about splitting or trimming. BUT, that isn't an accurate number. What SIZE tells us is that article size is based on "readable prose", which does not include coding and a whole lot of other things. Taking that into consideration, the actual article size is about 33 kb. Per WP:SIZE, "30 KB - Length alone does not justify division." So, no, the article is not too long. It's far from it. Jason Voorhees is featured, and far longer than this article. That being said, this article does need some clean up, but length is not a problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with this, though I still think we could lose some plot and some of those block quotes could probably be folded into the main article. Thank you for actually discussing this. AniMate 01:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Everybody breathe

Hey, I'm coming into this late, but without even commenting on the article itself, I have to ask you all to step back, take a deep breath and start being more civil. You all have valid points, but insulting each other in various ways isn't helping. — TAnthony^Talk 15:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP was way out of line in their last comment. That having been said I still stand by what I've said here. This shouldn't have gone down like this, and the reason things went south is because of Flyer22 decided she didn't have to discuss things. AniMate 15:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was inappropriate, but there's a lot of that going on here  ;) That's my point, everyone each other to insults that have gone beyond the discussion of the article itself. — TAnthony^Talk 16:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as the article goes ... the "discussion" above has gotten off the topic, I don't see much in the way of specific criticisms. At first glance, I don't think the article is "too long" as much as it may just need some tightening. The character is certainly notable for the lesbian storyline and being Erica Kane's daughter, but there are probably instances where certain points are overblown, and the plot section does indeed seem long. But I wish more soap article were overstuffed with info like this! Flyer has worked hard on this article so of course she (?) is going to be a little protective, but I'm also leery of those who may feel that articles on fictional topics should by nature be less expansive than real-world ones. Not that I think the particular IP user who started this discussion was being unreasonable, a good point was definitely made.

I'd like to see some well-documented copyediting from some editors who are not AMC fans but know who Erica Kane is, LOL. And I invite all of you involved in this discussion to give some more specific criticisms of particular sections or elements of the article that you think need work. And the tags can only help attract participation, it's not as though they invite deletion or anything. I'd really like to get into the article myself for several reasons, but I've just started a new show and haven't had much time to dedicate here. That's all for now! — TAnthony^Talk 16:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Things did not go South because of me. That is all I have to say on this subject. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tightening up

I cleaned up a lot of this article just now, and tightened up a few things...such as getting rid of most of the block quotes (as suggested above, which, yep, I already knew needed to be done). And I have tweaked some of the wording. I often have other things to attend to, as I am sure some of you do. But anyone who has the time to help improve the prose and cut down on the Storyline section, I would appreciate it. I will add sources to the Storyline section later, even though I generally feel that plot summaries should not be sourced, as the play, television show or film is the reference. But that seems to apply more to play and film plot summaries these days on Wikipedia.

I have been the main one working on ths article since taking it from being solely a plot summary to what it is now. Also, when I first started fixing up this article, I was still fairly new to Wikipedia and am now more stern in what I consider quality. As such, I do have concerns regarding a few of the references in the Lesbian community angers section.

I would appreciate any editor's comments on these matters. Flyer22 (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In particular, I am speaking of stating a crossdresser/blogger's thoughts, The Wow Report statement, the celegaytions.com statement....and the eyeonsoaps.net source. Celegaytions.com does not appear to be a blog, but still. And, I mean, blogs are okay when they are coming from an editor of a reputable source such as TV Guide, as is used in that section as well, but I'm not so sure that a typical blogger who happened to watch the storyline between Bianca and Zarf/Zoe is best to mention...even though we are pointing out that it is a blog comment. Flyer22 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I really think Flyer22 should step away from this article. If there is consensus that it needs to be tightened, sub edited, shortened or what ever, I don't think it should be Flyer22 who does this. It needs someone with a fresh set of eyes, someone who hasn't spent as much time dedicated to it, and someone who cannot have the accusation of "owning" the article levelled at them as I have accused Flyer22 of - I which I still stand by, incidentally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.163.186 (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree completely with this. She's making continuous improvements to the article, why would anyone want her to stop? I don't see you or anyone else offering to copyedit it, and even if someone else wanted to then Flyer seems quite willing to work collaboratively. Futhermore, you haven't given any constructive suggestions about what could improve the article. You still haven't said what part(s) you are concerned about, which was the whole point of you starting this discussion in the first place, wasn't it? It's beginning to seem like you're picking on the article out of spite against Flyer, but there's really no need to try and discredit her contributions like this. Remember we're all volunteers here, and if anything Flyer should be commended for putting so much effort into improving this article. Take a look at the page before Flyer started working on it, and you'll see the sorry state it was in [1]. I'm not suggesting you are doing this, but there are some dictatorial editors on wiki, who do very little but give orders and criticise the people who actually work extremely hard to build articles. But without major contributers (like Flyer) the articles would forever remain stubs, and I don't think it's right for anyone to try and discourage these kind of editors, because they are seriously few and far between (especially on topics like soap). That's not to suggest that Flyer or anyone else has more say over the article's content, but if nothing else it would be beneficial to the article if you could try and work with Flyer instead of against her.

I suggest you read the article properly and make a list here of all the issues you would like to be rectfied under the title "Possible Improvements". Then after discussion, Flyer or you can make the improvements and cross them off one by one. It would help if you're specific. Saying things like "this is too long" helps no one really. What parts would you like trimmed? what parts are you happy with? Do you feel there is inappropriate language in places? do you dislike the layout and what do you dislike about it, how would you improve it? Gungadin 17:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This article now has a fresh set of eyes, IP. A fresh set or rather fresh sets of eyes does not require the main contributer of the article to stop working on it. The main contributer is the best to perfect the article, as others help, because the main contributer is (usually) well-versed in the subject. I do not see whatsoever how I need to step away from this article when nothing is clouding my judgment about it and I recognize any problems it may have just as an uninvolved editor would. Do you know how many times Bignole has been accused of feeling that he owns an article simply because he is the main or one of the main contributers to it, and often reverts IP editors and sometimes editors' edits? Even if I did feel I owned this article, which I do not, I would be very valuable in editing it up to par. Flyer22 (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked editor AnmaFinotera her thoughts on improving this article. Here are her suggestions:

"So far, its looking like its going in a good direction. Certainly the first soap character article that didn't make me scream and shudder. :D I would suggest reconsidering the images being used. The first two in the plot section don't seem necessary and would likely be called violations of WP:NONFREE in a GA review. Also try to tighten up the "Storyline" section. The headers there seem a bit off, especially the first one. In icon, the quote is not long enough for a callout, I believe, so need to incorporate back into the text. Rather than popular and criticsm sections, it seems a single Reception section would be a more neutrally headered section, either before or after cultural impact. Check all the refs to make sure they are formatted correctly (preferably using the appropriate citation template like {{cite web}}), and that they contain all relevant and available information: ideally title, publisher/work, author, date published, and date accessed. Ref 5, for example, is badly done and inappropriate. Its linking to a copyvio image, rather than just giving the actual publication information using {{cite journal}}. For printed media, page numbers are heavily desired. Ref 15 is missing the date and author, though both are given in the article. Als check to make sure they are all reliable sources. Also, clean up the ELs and make sure there are n unnecessary links (like that fansite). For the last link, use as a source if it isn't already, but otherwise unneeded. If you are going for GA, the last thing after that would be getting it copyedited and I think it should be good to go. Now, if you are aiming for FA, the entire storyline section will also need to be referenced out to the individual episodes ({{cite episode}} will be your new best friend :P). Hope that helps some :)"

As I stated on AnmaFinotera's talk page, "The only thing that would be difficult to do, though, is citing the episodes. Soap opera episodes are extremely difficult to cite. I would have to go the route of citing the episodes like the featured soap opera character Pauline Fowler does or the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article does."

Anyway, those are other suggestions for improving this article. If anyone wants to go ahead and get started on some of this, feel free, of course. I'll attend to this article when I can. Flyer22 (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Did a bit of storyline condensing and removed a few images/subheadings per suggestions above, feel free to revert if you like. I think we could possibly remove the subheadings in "storyline" alltogether, so that it resembles a film plot section. Once further tightening is done, it may look silly to have subheadings when the text isn't majorly long. What do you think? Gungadin 15:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking good

Looking good, Gungadin. I was thinking about keeping the image where Bianca "comes out" to her mother (since that was a poignant moment for her) and instead getting rid of the image where her daughter is born (though that can be argued as a poignant moment for her as well). But what you did looks great. I'm still not sure which of those two images is more important, though, to enhancing this article, the one where she reveals her sexual orientation to her mother...or the birth of her daughter. Either way, two key images is all that Storyline section needs, as you've done, with the first now being of Bianca kissing Lena Kundera. And, yes, I would rather the subsections in the Storyline section go.

As for the Cultural impact section, though, I'm not so sure that those subsections should, at least not all of them. I mean, that would be quite long to all go under the title of simply Reception. Not only that, but those are important topics that are seemingly better addressed separately. Flyer22 (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, glad it's ok, I will do a bit more condensing, but feel free to revert or reinclude anything if you feel I go OTT.

I agree with you about the critical impact section, although I suppose you could combine icon and awards into one blanket topic of popularity. Likewise everything under controversey could be combined, but that would make it a very long section and it's not a good idea if it will make it less accessible to editors (they may be put off by such large blocks of text). It would allow us to play around with the magazine image placement though, which kind of looks a little messy squashed up against that quote box etc at the moment. I'm happy to go with your judgement here as you know the topic and text best.

As for images, would it not be possible to keep both, but move the "coming out" one to the 'further concept' section, because I notice that coming out is mentioned there, but not about Bianca. If you know of any critical discussion where writers or Riegel discuss Bianca coming out to her mother, then we could combine it here and the image could be used to illustrate that perhaps? Otherwise, I would say that the birth of the baby is the more important image, but that's just in my opinion.

One thing I noticed is that the character first appeared in 1988, but her storylines only document events after 2000. Is the early stuff not worh mentioning? Gungadin 17:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I finished condesning. Is it ok? Gungadin 12:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks a lot. As for Bianca's storyline before 2000, I'm not sure what to say. I mean, that she was a little bit of a trouble child and more information on her eating disorder? It would just be more plot, but maybe something should be mentioned about her storylines before 2000. In any case, if readers want more on her character history, that's why I have links like More detailed Bianca biography: From birth to 2005 in the External links section. I also found a way to incorporate the "coming out " image; it's in the Casting and character creation section, as I'm sure you noticed.

Concerning the subsections in the Cultural impact section again, I combined all the popularity subsections under just Popularity, in previewing it, but as I knew it would, it just made it seem as though this character has had a lot more controversy than good. Because there is no way to combine all of the controversy subsections under just the title of Controversy without it being a very long section and without it seeming not right to divide those important topics individually. I did combine the Icon and Awards sections, though, by instead titling it Daytime and visibility. I also took away one subheading from the Controversy section, the first one that was titled First news of storyline. Flyer22 (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I've been wanting to put the "Give Bianca her baby back" section under the Popularity title, since that has more to do with her popularity than controversy. But that comes after the Bianca rape controversy, and addressing that first, then the rape controversy, is a little akward. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the sections in CI are definitely an improvement and no more merging is necessary. As for early storylines, maybe we could just move that little section in the lead about Reye's etc to the storyline? because I noticed that it's only really mentioned in the lead, and as the lead is only supposed to summarise the main points of the article, it's probably not the best place for it. Although, that will only matter if you're planning to nom this as a GA. Are you planning on doing that? I think it would be a good candidate. Also, do you know the years that the former actresses plated Bianca until? It might be a good idea to add their durations next to their names in the lead. What do you think? I know i'm interested in this, but maybe no one else would be :) Gungadin 19:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I did some more tweaking, and went ahead and put the "Give Bianca her baby back" section under the Popularity title; it fits fine there after all, even though the rape controversy is not addressed until after that. The dates of all the actresses who portrayed Bianca? I put that information in the character infobox. It would be distracting in the lead. And, yes, I am looking to nominate this article for GA, of course. I would nominate it for FA if the plot section was already sourced, though I would probably wait until I added additional sources elsewhere, a section about her lack of love life being criticized, maybe a section about some books she's been written in, and pruned out the statements by those blogs mentioned above. Flyer22 (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, yes, I would like you to find a way to add in a little information in the Storyline section about her life before 2000. Flyer22 (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

cool, i'll see what I can do, though i'm a little tired after work tonight, and that feeling's always worse on a Monday night :) I was thinking, the casting and creation section doesnt say anthing about the character's creation prior to Eden Reigel playing the role. Is there any oou information about the previous actors in the role that we could incorporate? Did the eating disorder or the Reye's syndrome storylines have much of an impact? or is no critical analysis available? Gungadin 20:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt such information exists. I mean, this character was only portrayed by child actresses before Riegel. That's not to say that children do not have in-depth roles, but this role was not truly defined until Riegel. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

References!!!

Flyer22, your removal of my request for a citation for the fact that Montgomery is the 'subject of many books' because part of that fact is in the further reading section. I'll add more to that soon. And, really, the lead is suppose to summarize the article, which already sources what it mentions is completely unjustified. If you are going to put in a fairly weighty fact that a soap character has been the subject of "many books", you are really going to have to back that up with something a little more substantial. If the fact is already in the "further reading section" then include a reference. Please do not just remove "citation required" s...it once again does nothing to discourage the belief that you believe you "own" this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.163.184 (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All your citation request shows is that you are constantly trying to bug me. Per WP:LEAD, references do not even have to be in the lead of Wikipedia articles since leads are suppose to summarize basically what is already sourced/shown in the articles, as I surely noted in that edit summary. More to the point, if numerous books are in the Further reading section, then, no, it does not have to be cited in the lead that she has been written about in numerous books when it is clear to the eye in the Further reading section that she has. In any case, I changed "numerous books" to just "books" (until I add "numerous" book listings), which is fact, showcased in the Further reading section. I suppose you are going to request a citation for that simple fact as well? Sigh. Think what you want of me. I simply do not care. I can only imagine you sticking around this article once it is nominated for FA (Featured Article) status just to point out "problems" that it does not have. So far, you have not pointed out any true problems with this article. You just keep coming back to it because you have a clear grudge against me, even though this is one of the best fictional character articles on Wikipedia and you should be off tagging others for citations and crap. Whatever. Flyer22 (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not trying to bug you. I am just perplexed by your stubborness to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines when it comes to "your" articles. I could also add that you are refusing to listen to my point of view simply because it is "me".

1) If you read WP:LEAD properly, you would realise that your claim that references to not have to be in the lead is blantantly false. See : The lead should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.

I have challenged your "fact" that Bianca Montgomery has been the subject of "many books" or "books", and therefore I think I am right in requesting a citation. If you already know all the facts about these books, why is it such a problem to add the citation? Or are you refusing to "just to bug me"?

2) Claiming the books in your "further reading" section is proof that Montgomery has been the subject of "many books" is laughable. The first book, by Gross, merely mentions "the first lesbian kiss on television" as an "ambigious milestone", the second, by Danuta, features what appears to be 8 lines on Montgomery. The final book by Byerly is just as bad, with at best 2 paragraphs on Montgomery. You can't seriously hold these books up as proof that Montgomery has been "the subject of books". At best, she has been briefly mentioned in several academic books on gay people in the media/popular culture. Until a book is published featuring Montgomery as the star of the whole damn thing, it is entirely misleading and inappropriate to say she has been the subject of books. You need to cite this, or remove it immediately - it is an utterly concocted fact.

As for your comment that I am sticking around for this article to be awarded FA status just so I can point out "problems it does not have", judging by the shoddy referencing pointed out above, perhaps someone should be sticking around to point out the problems.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.163.184 (talk • contribs)

You are wrong. My statements about leads are not false. Notice that it says that leads are a case by case matter and discussed between editors on whether or not it needs references. This article's lead most certainly does not read references, considering that everything it mentions is sourced below in the article. And before what the lead policy currently says, it used to state that references in the lead were not preferrable. So sue me that I haven't read the lead policy thoroughly since its revision. What I stated was still correct. Bianca Montgomery has been the subject of books, not just "mentions", and even "mentions" can mean "subject" anyway. As for books, one book "featuring Montgomery as the star of the whole damn thing" is in the article, in the Cultural impact section. More can be attained as well. If I do not hurry and provide these books to this article it is more likely that I like seeing you get even more and more furious with me, not that it's "such a problem to add the citation". And I mean finding a source that specifically states "she has been the subject of numerous books"? It's more likely that you would have to source that statement with numerous references that show all the books she's been written in, which is not only tedious but ridiculous when all the books she's been written in can clearly be shown in the Further reading section. I could simply change the wording to "has been written about in books"...and you'd still find something to complain about concerning this article. Why? Simply because I have worked on this article and continue to work on this article. Your suggestion that I stay away from this article above was the most laughable and childish thing I've just about seen on Wikipedia. You are like a child who feels he has just been bullied...so therefore you are "out for payback". You cannot honestly expect me to believe that you just so happened to wind up at this article after I reverted one of your wrong edits to another article. No, you showed up here, acting as though this article has some huge, serious problems due to your childish grudge against me, even though this article is better than the majority of fictional character articles on Wikipedia. No, there are not "shotty references" in this article, unless you count that one left in the Lesbian community angers section, which will be gone soon. And, yes, you are "trying to bug me"...which has been clear from the day you showed up at this article, which was also pointed out by another editor above.

Go ahead and continue to play these childish games, but I will not be a part of them. Your sticking around to "point out the problems" in this artcle is not a surprise to me, considering that I am the one who mentioned you would try. But I must also state again that all you have done so far concerning this article is bitch and moan about insignificant details. What have you really done to improve this article? What do you really know what it's like to take a piece-of-crap article and make it conform to most of Wikipedia's policies, if not all, to make it good, great, or excellent? Nothing. But I do. So you can continue to bag on me all you want, but I am the one fixing up crap articles on Wikipedia...while you just bitch and moan to people about fixing up articles on Wkipedia, crap or not.

Now, if you'll excuse me (actually, I don't care if excuse me or not), I have this "book issue" to take care of, so you can get the hell off my back and go troll someone else. Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems to just be a language issue. So am I right in thinking, ip, that you would not be opposed to the lead saying that "BM has been discussed in various academic books"? You just think that saying she is the "subject" of the books is misleading? If so, then Flyer, would you object to using the above sentence instead? Adding inline citations to the end of the sentence wont do any harm either, and better the article is water-tight before you take it to FAC. It would only give people a reason to object, and having been through two FAC's with Pauline Fowler, they object for any minute reason they can think of, just to be contrary. It's good to have someone critiquing it now, and if the ip wants to do that in an unbiased way, I think that might be a good thing, although I can see why you think he might be trying to get at you from his prior comments.Gungadin 18:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If I cannot get a hold of the other book she has been the actual subject of, I will change the word from "subject", but if I do get the other book or more, I will leave it as "subject" and also add "mentions" to it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP contacted me to have a look, and I must say that Gungadin's suggestion seems appropriate in this case. I'm not sure there's enough subject material related to the character to justify entire academic works based solely on her, though that is just my opinion. However, I know the character, her bulimia, and her sexual orientation have been discussed in scholarly works. A citation is probably needed, though, and having a tag up asking for one isn't something to be upset about. Consider it a friendly reminder to keep up the hard work. AniMate 20:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added two books that she is "the star of"... In other words, two books either solely or significantly about her. She most definitely has enough material related to her to have academic works be solely about her. And I added more books that she has been studied/analyzed in. Being studied or analyzed in books is not even "brief mentions". Either way, that part of the lead now states "has been the subject and study of books", which is true. I do not see how that needs to be attributed to references when it is in the Further reading section. To add all or most of those to the lead as references would be tacky and is not needed. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears the two works solely about Bianca aren't books but articles in journals. I think perhaps the best wording might be "BM has been the subject of various academic works." That encompasses books and articles. AniMate 21:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Great suggestion

Great suggestion, AniMate. Excuse my making a subsection. I've switched to PlayStation 3 again. Feel free to change it to your suggestion, especially since I am unable to at the moment. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

There now Flyer22, was that so difficult? You stated that BM was the subject of "many books" and gave no evidence of this. I queried this, you ranted and raged and then found books that proved she had been the subject of various academic studies, and entered the relevant information. A fact with no evidence, becomes a fact with proof. Problem solved, article conforming to standards. I still don't understand why you have to make things so difficult and frustrating. It is interesting how you asked me to "get the hell of my back" when all I orginally did was ask the internet universe for a citation. I never came looking for you, or even aim the query at you. I didn't think you would take it so personally, seeing as it is against Wikipedia policy to claim "ownership" of articles. Thanks for handling this in such a mature matter - admitting that you delayed adding sources just because you enjoyed seeing how "furious" I got, and apparently condoning bullying of children! All I wanted was one little reference......does that make me such a bad person??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.163.184 (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The matter is settled and the two of you should not make any more comments about each other. Let's just focus on the article. AniMate 22:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I would, but we all know the reaction I will get if I make any suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.163.184 (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

By all means continue to suggest, just try not to say anything about Flyer22. Collaborating with someone who you disagree with can be difficult, especially when it comes to such wikipedia staples as templates and tags, but in these low priority/low traffic articles you have to deal with a small number of editors... so you have to work with people you strongly disagree with. It's not always easy (trust me, I know), but keeping all comments focused on the article and off the contributors makes things much easier. Finally, if you get stuck, rather than start bitching about "Editor X" you can file an article RfC or post your problem at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas. AniMate 22:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean

Don't try and teach me about Wikipedia policies, IP. You were the one making things so difficult and frustrating. I don't even see that big of a difference in the wording. I don't believe that you were simply trying to better this article, given what occurred prior to that. We all know what will happen if you make "suggestions" indeed. I didn't even state that I was intentionally annoying you. I stated that perhaps I was. But, seriously, it was you who was intentionally annoying me. And, no, I certainly do not condone the bullying of children. And, wait, are you a child? Either way, I see you love to put words in people's mouths.

All this time you could have been making reasonable suggestions. You have not. Instead, you pointed out a non-problem and a minor part of the lead that needed tweaking in your opinion. I work fine with others on Wikipedia, as I demonstrated with Gungadin on this article for a few days.

But, like AniMate stated, this "matter" is over. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the matter is over, except you continue to address the IPs behavior rather than just focusing on content. Rather than trying to get the last word in, which is a fruitless endeavor, why not just let shit go. IP, you should feel free to continue and voice your opinion about only the article content, and if Flyer's responses aren't what you consider reasonable, contact me or Gungadin or try the RfC or Wikiproject. There's no need or either of you to say anything else about one another, and there certainly isn't any need for either of you to try and prove who is right. AniMate 01:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Reese and Bianca Marriage

Bianca only sent Reese the papers. We don't know if she ever sign them. --M42380 (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Riegel as the main image

Previous discussion was at User talk:Flyer22/Archive 6#Eden Riegel interview. AniMate's view has been demonstrated through the article's edit history.

This was discussed before on my talk page. Myself and two other editors (AniMate and Rocksey) agreed to keep Eden Riegel as the main image. As I stated to an IP, we put Riegel first, not necessarily because of bias (though I suppose it could be called that, since we are partly making that decision based on who portrayed the role longer and notability), but rather because of recognition. Riegel is the most recognized and most notable performer in this role. Bianca is a television lesbian icon, and Riegel's face is most associated with that. Wikipedia is completely fine with this. Template:Infobox soap character (check under Parameter descriptions) even says, "Primary image to illustrate the character; preferably current or most notable portrayer." While the word "or" is there, how does it make more sense to have the most recent portrayer as the main image in this case? If anyone feels strongly about Riegel not being the main image, believe me that we will listen and consider your thoughts...especially if you make a strong case. Just discuss it over with us, instead of edit warring. Flyer22 (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Judging from previous discussion, I recommend that the photo should be replaced, but the current image placed in the casting section. CrackedLeo (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

CrackedLeo, you mean have Lind's image first and the Riegel image in the casting section? Or the other way around? Why not have both images in the infobox? Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Not the other way around, and because it would be logical because Lind succeeds Riegel's role and that Riegel is the predecessor to the role. CrackedLeo (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, after asking that question, I quickly figured you did not mean the other way around (LOL), seeing as the Casting section deals with Riegel in the role. As for having Lind first, what do you make of Riegel being the most notable and recognized in the role? Do you feel that this is not good enough to validate her staying as the main image? Weighing the two options, why does having Lind first make more sense to you than having Riegel first? Flyer22 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Riegel is notable because of that lesbian kiss. Second question, yes despite my answer to question one. Third question, I believe that the image of a cast member must always be updated to show who casts who. CrackedLeo (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

CrackedLeo, Riegel is not only notable in this role because of the 2003 lesbian kiss; this article is packed with information (and sources to back up that information) as to why she is notable in this role. The main image does not always have to be of the current performer. The James Bond article is an example of that, and so is Template:Infobox soap character (linked above). I will wait and see what Rocksey and AniMate have to state about your thoughts on this matter. I am still not convinced that Lind should be first, but with each change an IP or registered editor makes to place Lind first, I am starting to think that it (her being first) may be for the best. Flyer22 (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Lind would make much more sense in being the main image so people who look at the article won't get confused in seeing Riegels' image, Riegel was most notable in the role yes, but she's not playing the role of Bianca anymore, look at Michael McBain, Michael Corinthos, Colby Chandler, and Riegel's current character Heather Stevens those articles have the current actress/actor as their pics, why can't Bianca be the same? It's not like Riegel's pic is being deleted just down at the bottom. CrackedLeo (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think Riegel's image should be first because her portrayal of the character is the most notable. I'm willing to change my mind if someone has a really convincing argument, but so far I haven't really seen one. Yes, Lind is the actress portraying the character in the newest episodes, but that doesn't make her more notable or more identifiable than Riegel. Michael McBain, Michael Corinthos, and Colby Chandler all look like start-class articles, not ones we should be basing decisions on. Rocksey (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the less I agree with the previous position I took. I think expecting an actor who is currently portraying a role to be first isn't unreasonable. How long does it take another performer to become more notable for a role? It's kind of unquantifiable and I think this comes down to our preferences rather than any actual policy. Take Jill Abbott for instance. Jess Walton has played the role for years and won numerous awards for it, but the shear volume of press out there about Brenda Dickson, her firing, and her subsequent war of words with Y&R could potentially lead her to be considered more notable. Carly Corinthos is another article where the current actress might not be the most notable one. Sarah Brown won multiple Emmys for her portrayal and is I believe the longest Carly, though Wright is close. Tamara Braun was nominated for an Emmy as well and portrayed the role for four years. So unless we have some quantifiable way of saying this is when a recast becomes more notable than a previous actor, I think the current actor should go first. Sorry to change my mind, but I think this will solve a lot of issues in the future. If we can't come to an agreement, we can always start an WP:RfC to get some outside input. AniMate 23:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a WP:RfC would be the best way to go.

This is a little off topic, but do you know where I can find that press about Brenda Dickson and her firing? I've actually been looking for realiable sources on it for a while. Rocksey (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Bianca, I would say that it is fairly easy to say who is more notable in the role; it is also something that I do not feel is likely to change. I mean, we are talking about a lesbian icon here...where Riegel's face is still firmly ingrained into the viewers' minds as Bianca. With an article like Todd Manning, where plenty of people still feel that Roger Howarth is the most notable in the role, that is different since it is acknowledged in the show that Todd changed his face and since Trevor St. John has portrayed that role for so long now. I get AniMate's point, though. After all, when Babe Carey was portrayed by a different actress, we had that actress's face first. We also had the new Greenlee Smythe as the main image while she was in the role, despite Rebecca Budig being the most notable/recognized in the role. Still, when Babe was killed off, we decided it was best to have Alexa Havins as the main image because Babe's legacy is still mostly with her. I am now torn on this Riegel/Bianca image issue, but I am still leaning more towards Riegel being the main image for the reasons I stated above. For example, it is going to be a little weird to click on Bianca's couple articles and see Riegel's face, but see Lind's face first when we click back on this one. But that is recasting for you. Flyer22 (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment started

This nonsense has gone on long enough. If we can't find a solution to whether we should use a photo in a infobox then god help us all. CrackedLeo (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not nonsense, CrackedLeo. But an Rfc is a good way to go. Thank you for starting it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And he has been blocked as a sock of User:Pickbothmanlol, a troll I'm unfamiliar with. I have no particularly strong feelings about this, so continue or discontinue the RfC. It's up to you guys. AniMate 08:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I did find it strange that he or she was adapting to the way things work on Wikipedia so quickly, but I strugged it off as the person having been an IP editor for some time or just a quick learner. As for this discussion, I invited Amandaxpandax14, someone else who objects to Riegel being the main image, to weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Christina Bennett Lind ~ First Image

Because Riegel is no longer portraying the role of Bianca Montgomery, I feel that Lind should have the first image spot. I feel the same way about all soap characters. When a person clicks on the page, I believe if they are a current viewer, they will expect to see the current portrayer having the first image spot. Please at least consider this! Amandaxpandax14 {talk} 6:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC) ‎

We are considering it, Amandaxpandax14, and one of us (AniMate) even changed his mind about the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering, have the editors made a decision yet regarding having Christina Bennett Lind has the first image on the Bianca Montgomery article? Amandaxpandax14 (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We're waiting for a requested outside editor to comment (Request for comment). And, Amanda, you do not have to start a new heading for progression of this discussion...since it's the same discussion and does not have a lot of comments in it yet. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you Flyer22. By any chance, do you know when the requested outside editor will comment? Amandaxpandax14 (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Sometimes, one or more will weigh in quickly. Sometimes, they take longer to weigh in. As the Request for comment tag above states, it will allow 30 days for an outside editor or editors to comment. Flyer22 (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What happens if no outside editor(s) comment within 30 days? Amandaxpandax14 (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There are other avenues to pursue. Another RfC can be filed, or we can solicit opinions on noticeboards or at various WikiProjects. AniMate 17:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The first image

I got tired of waiting for a answer as to which image would be the first one, Riegel or Bennett Lind. So I changed the photo. If anyone has a problem with this, please let me know. Amandaxpandax14 (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted, because this matter is still not settled and I want it very much settled before changing to Lind. Also, it strikes me as quite weird to have Lind up there as the main image, even when I think I am not too opposed to it any longer.

As for waiting, we were no longer waiting for an answer; the Rfc closed, because there was not answer. You will have to find some other means to solve this, one of the suggestions AniMate made above. Flyer22 (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, can someone explain when and how exactly an actress becomes the most notable for portraying a part? We're going for NPOV in all our articles. Since declaring an actress no longer with a show is more notable than one currently appearing on a show is an opinion, this seems to be a violation of NPOV. An infobox is there to easily disseminate basic facts about a subject, including what a character currently looks like. Right now the first image we see is Eden, and if I didn't read the infobox and just looking at all of the other pictures in the article, I would assume that she currently is portraying the role. Right now, the only reason given for Eden's picture being first is that she is more notable, which is really not quantifiable. Let's move Lind's image first, since she is the current actress and Riegel has a total of four images in the article. AniMate 21:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

When and how exactly does an actress become the most notable for portraying a part? I suppose when it is not a question of which is more notable in the role. Is there really any question that Riegel is the most notable and recognized as Bianca? With Babe Carey, for example, the series even recently showed a picture of Alexa Havins as Babe...as if recasting the previous Babe. Is there any question why they did that? With a character like Todd Manning, however, I would wager that Roger Howarth is still the most notable. The only reason Trevor St. John is the first image is because not only is he the current portrayer...but that is Todd's current face as scripted within the show...and St. John has now portrayed the role nearly as long as Howarth. I still feel that Riegel should be the first image. I'm pretty sure that when people think of Bianca Montgomery, they think of Riegel first, not Lind (who has been in the role for a brief time). And I do not see how, with the lead (intro), and infobox clarification, people would assume Riegel is still portraying the role. That is pure laziness and the person may have eyesight problems at that. But since I am tired of fighting it, I will not be reverting you on it any time soon. I will say, though, that it still seems awkward, even more so given that all of Bianca's couple articles have Riegel as one half of the pairings. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Deciding who is most notable is a value judgment we shouldn't be making. The most neutral was of doing this is to have the current actress first. Is Alicia Minshew the most notable Kendall Hart? Considering all of the backstage conflicts, the later career, and the Emmy win, Sarah Michelle Gellar is arguably more notable in the role. Carly Corinthos is another head scratcher. Sarah Joy Brown won three Emmys, Tamara Braun has a massive fan base, while Laura Wright is the current actress and is quite popular. Jess Walton is extremely popular as Jill Abbott, but Brenda Dickson's firing and the fact that she popularized the role might make her more notable actress. Don't even get me started on who is more notable as Heather Stevens, newly cast Riegel or unpopular Vail Bloom. Editorial judgment can be used here, but likely the most neutral way of deciding these things is going by the current actress. Right now, Christina Bennett Lind is Bianca. One can prefer Eden Riegel, think she's the "real" Bianca, but she's not Bianca anymore, and the most accurate up to date image of the character is Lind's. AniMate 21:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. You often do make good arguments. But I still stick by what I stated above on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And just a reminder, AniMate, and to anyone else debating this topic, we are also talking about recognition. Not just notability in relation to what Wikipedia considers notable. For example, I'm pretty sure that Alisha Minshew is the most recognized version of Kendall Hart. But, like I stated, I get your point. I just wanted to throw that back out there as well. Flyer22 (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, when Sarah Michelle Gellar last played Kendall, All My Children as viewed by 7.3 - 6.1 million viewers. During Alecia Minshew's tenure, the show ratings have averaged 3.3 - 2 million viewers. Almost twice as many viewers watched Sarah Michelle Gellar in the role, so arguably she is more people would recognize her version of the character. Again, things like recognition and notability are subjective. AniMate 21:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't buy that Sarah Michelle Gellar is more recognized as Kendall. Even I, someone who watched back then as a child, now thinks of Alicia Minshew first when I think of Kendall Hart (who is called Kendall Hart Slater more these days). The ratings were significantly higher back then, sure (we all know that), but Minshew has portrayed this character for much longer than Gellar, and her face is more readily out there as Kendall. Things like recognition and notability are subjective sometimes, yes, but certainly not in the case of Bianca Montgomery. It cannot even be argued in this case. Again, we are talking about a lesbian icon here. I mean, as for Riegel no longer being the character, I will use an argument Bignole once made about fictional characters: Riegel will always be Bianca; there will always be some clip on YouTube or elsewhere showing her as the character, some article with pictures of her out there...or some deep scholarly analysis crediting Riegel and her portrayal of Bianca for making it "okay to be gay" on American soap opera. That is all I am saying -- I believe the iconic face being displayed as the main image is more important than the current face in this case. But, yes, I get your point, AniMate. You come from a very sound and reasonable place. I just hope you get where I am coming from as well; after all, it was not that long ago that you felt the same way. Flyer22 (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Once the show is off the air several months from now, I would say it's okay to go ahead and put Riegel's image first again, since she is still the most recognized in the role. We did the same for Babe Carey and maybe a few other soap opera character articles. Flyer22 (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)