Talk:Eric Forrester

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Soap Operas

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Deletion

This article has been tagged for deletion (though not actually nominated for AfD) because it has no references, no assertion of notability for the character, and consists entirely of plot (and a lot of it). I have just added McCook's Emmy nomination for the role (with a reference) and a source for his casting, but the article still needs some work. I encourage those interested in preserving the article start by taking a look here at the many articles involving the character to find material which points to the character's notability within the series and even beyond it (maybe this one) and incorporate it, with references. Someone familiar with the series also needs to trim any extraneous detail from the plot summaries. So many soap articles are in the same shape and will get tagged for deletion sooner or later, editors like Flyer22 and I who do more than add the latest plot tidbits don't have the time or desire to fix all of them. Thanks for your participation here! 20:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Should the deletion tag have been removed? Just because there are a couple sources doesn't mean this article shouldn't be deleted. There is no notability proven within the article and there's way too much plot summary.Rocksey (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be argued that the Emmy nom makes the character notable, but I was going to leave the tag there for a couple more days in hopes it would encourage others to participate and remove it before the "deadline" so someone wouldn't put it into actual AfD. You are absolutely correct that it's still in poor shape, and will probably be tagged again anyway if it isn't improved.— TAnthony^Talk 00:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look around to see if I can find more sources for this. I might find some recent articles or interviews about this character in some magazines. If I do, I'll provide them for anyone who wants to improve this article.Rocksey (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some scans of an interview with John McCook from the Feb. 2, 2009 CBS Soaps In Depth that can be used as a source for someone who wants to improve this article[1][2][3][4]. I would try to improve it myself but I only watched the show for a couple of years a few years ago. It might be better if someone who was more familiar with the character expanded the article. If no one does though, I might eventually work on it.Rocksey (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Condensation of material; correction of in-universe style

This article is no longer written in the in-universe style: I corrected the verb tense and added a few references to the out-of-universe circumstances that led to certain plot developments. I also condensed the material considerably. It is still on the longish side; there are still too few sources; and there are still too few proofs of notability. NOTE: I don't know if this would be acceptable or not, but I would suggest that the sources for various plot developments be episode numbers. Any thoughts? -- JustinSpurlin (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the episodes themselves would probably constitute original research, since the plot description is then based off that individual contributor's interpretation of the episode rather than a summary prepared by a reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B003:97DA:B90C:B7F3:5DE5:B238 (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary is out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4300:EE90:1C97:6001:C8E0:346A (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eric Forrester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]