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
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
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
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.
I oppose this because a search engine offers 48,400,000 results for "Kim Sullivan Hughes" while "Kim Hughes" only offers 3,500,000 results and leads to other people/figures with the same name. That is 44,900,000 difference. Kim Sullivan Hughes should remain the active article for these reasons and the fact that it generates the use of both names that the character is known by. Casanova88 (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For Kim Sullivan Hughes while searching for Books, 168 results came through. Using Sullivan still generates more results. Regardless, the names both configure names the character is known by. Casanova88 (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, kudos to you for actually looking for sources for once. I've never seen you do that before. If you are successful in having this article moved, then perhaps you will use this as a learning experience to search for sources, improve the article in all forms and not resort to immediate deletion. Don't you agree? Casanova88 (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm not interested in improving soap opera articles, I was planning to merge Ruth Martin and Joe Martin into Martin family. Searching them is a bitch, but I'm more interested in making a Martin family more like Ferreira family. While I'm not in favor of keeping content, I have to merge to make everybody happy. Right now, I'm more concerned about other articles not related to soaps. --George Ho (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps after this Kim Sullivan Hughes/Kim Hughes article matter is resolved, you take a good clear look at your contributions to this genre and focus on articles and topics where you can offer more valued editing. My point is that you are often disruptive of editing soap opera articles and you have decided that content is not worth keeping. While I appreciate your decision to merge rather than delete as of late, perhaps it is time to focus on other genres you have more interest in. Casanova88 (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.
