Talk:Logan family (The Bold and the Beautiful)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Missing pages[edit]

How come all of the individual pages for all the Logan family members (Brooke, Donna, Rick, Bridget, etc) have disappeared and route to this page, while all the individual pages of the Forrester members still exist? This isn't about which characters have more fans. This is about major characters on the show. Brooke Logan is one of the original remaining characters on this show. She deserves her own page. 38.106.204.50 (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey IP, I redirected the Logan family articles to this one because the result of the deletion debate for this article resulted in a Keep with most who "voted" keep suggesting that other articles that can't stand on their own should be merged here. Since all of those articles that related to this topic only contained lengthy plot summaries and all of the important character information was already here, I redirected them. They can be unredirected when someone wants to expand the articles beyond just plot.
This is not about who has more fans. I wasn't playing favorites by compacting the Logan's into one place and keeping the Forrester's with their own individual, poorly constructed articles. If you think we should, we could redirect all of them to the Forrester family article as well. Rocksey (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Forrester article should be merged as well or they get their pages back. Adam 94 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Bring the individuals pages back. Israell (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of duplicate articles[edit]

Duplicate articles exist, The Logan Family (created Aug. 2007) and Logan family (created Jun. 2008). The Logan Family was proposed for deletion. I am disputing the PROD for concern of creating a cut-and-paste page move to the new article. I suggest merging the two articles and redirecting to preserve content and edit histories. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where the hell is Donna Logan Forrester and Brooke Logan articles??! In this case they can make a Newman family article and a Forrester family article!! PROPOSES DELETION!!!! BRING BACK INDIVIDUAL ARTICLES!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBanks (talk • contribs) 05:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


THE LOGAN PAGES[edit]

i unredirected Brooke Logan And Donna Logan Forrester i will do the rest laterBigPadresDUDE (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you plan on expanding the articles beyond plot summary? I'll go more in depth in the message I'll leave on your talk page, but I am going to redirect these articles again until someone restores them and then actually show's that they are in the process of adding notability to them. Rocksey (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


If you are gooing to use this page to merge the other characters, you need to merge content in, not just make a list. Nor does a decision to merge other characters into here mean that all should necessarily be merged--some are presumably more central than others. As for copyvio, that's a real problem, and prevalent on all too many of the character pages. It can be rewritten in summary though, which solves two problems--the copyvio and the excessive detail. As you know, I support combination articles,not separate articles, for most instances--but the combination article must give enough information to trace not just the family tree, but to see what is important about the character in the series. The more they become mere lists, the more the consensus to use them will lose support. Please obtain specific consensus for the changes being made. The fuller the combination article (within reason), the more likely the merges are to be unopposed.
In any case, please don't use the word "recently" which will soon become inaccurate, but give the dates (including episode numbers if that detail is applicable--for one thing, it emphasizes real world nature of the information) DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the important plot information for each character is already in this article. Yes, the article can definitely use a lot of improvement with the writing and definitely needs sources. What it doesn't need is excessive plot like the individual articles had. If there are characters who are more central than others and deserve their own article, then those articles should contain proof of why that character is notable, not just contain plot that can be found at any fansite.
Are you going to help fix up this article, pinpoint which characters are more central than others, and then help fix those ones up too? Rocksey (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can hardly write on the characters, can I , when I've never seen the show; some subjects I write, some I read to get information. It's often hard with the ones I write on to know when I'm giving enough information--somethings that are obvious to me may not be to the readers. In the other direct, it is often easier to tell. Yes, I can simply abridge a Wikipedia article, but I can't do it intelligently, for Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources the way the show itself is, & I might be misunderstanding the key parts. I've seen lots of over short summaries for works I do know, and yes, then I try to fix them. some of them, anyway--of the 3 million articles here I'd estimate that 2 million of them need fixing--generally expansion, but sometimes cutting. As a minimum, this article needs some real world information--at what episode in what season did the various events happen.
Two of the characters here are described as core characters: Storm and Brooke in the 2nd generation--core characters in major shows--and this is a major show in the genre--would get article-length information if not articles. (& to identify them, they need photographs--it's the only way to communicate the character of the show). I accept that we might want to integrate the articles into combinations, but the information remains the same. As examples from the first 3 sentence I looked at: "Storm was a lawyer and has defended many people on the show. " which ones, at what events?" ; "He recently shot Stephanie Forrester, " at what point in the show did he shoot her, and how much damage did he do, and what were the consequences? "This showed that Storm still had unresolved issues with his father" This does not belong here unless there's a source since there's not enough detail to make it obvious & does not even seem correct--trying to frame one's father for a crime gives a good reason to get angry at them. Maybe I have it all confused, but that's the fault of there being not enough summary to make it clear.
"The information remaining the same is the current key dispute preventing compromise. I don't want to discuss the general issue at a specific show page. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's too bad. I understand why you can't work on these articles, but it is always disappointing when we see people fighting to keep articles and then moving on after they win without doing anything to address the issues with them.
The thing with soap operas is that they are all main characters. There aren't just a couple like on other shows, movies, or books. Another thing with soap operas is that they are on five days a week, they aren't separated into seasons. That's why it's ridiculous to try to summarize every single even that's happened in their storylines over the last 20+ years. So listing ever client Storm represented isn't realistic or notable. It's enough that he's a lawyer. But yes, his summary needs to be beefed up some, just like the others and rewritten. Whoever put this page together to begin with didn't seem to grasp the notion of complete sentences.
I'll spend some time looking through soap magazines I have and see how much I can improve the article with real world information.
I'm going to redirect Brigit Forrester back here. Rocksey (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tree?[edit]

So uh why does the Forrester family page have a family tree but it's irrelevant on this page? It's the same thing here and there and I was going for a bit of continuity on how the B&B family pages are structured, that is why I obviously wasted some time making the tree. So IMO it either gets deleted on both pages or put on both pages.Sparrowhawk7 (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I just don't see the value in a tree that says the exact same thing as the rest of the article above. Aren't the whole First generation, Second generation, Third generation, etc sections basically putting the characters in order in a family tree style? An extra family tree at the end would just be the same exact thing except with less information. Rocksey (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I also don't get why it can't be there. Yes it repeats the information, but it also shows it in another format where you won't have to read as much to get the same information. But anyways I think that if it has no value and is going to be deleted here then it needs to be deleted on the other family page as well because all it does is repeat the information on the Forrester page as well.Sparrowhawk7 (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the same information would be repetitive and clutter the article. I agree that it should probably be deleted from the Forrester family article, though. Rocksey (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Logan family. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The young and the restless. Plus.[edit]

Sign up for the programs The bold and the beautiful Louella45 (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Logan_family_(The_Bold_and_the_Beautiful)&oldid=1217822665"