Talk:Maxie Jones

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

Television

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Relationships section[edit]

Matt Hunter and Johnny Zacchara don't belong there; only Maxie's physical lovers and boyfriends do. It can also be argued that since Matt's flirtation with Maxie was one-sided, he definitely should not be there. Please stop putting them in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.107.181 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, neither Matt nor Johnny belongs in the "Relationships" section, and Matt's crush certainly does not seem ongoing, as he and Maxie haven't had any interaction since January. To whoever keeps putting them in the relationships section, please kindly desist- since they weren't sexual relationships or boyfriend/girlfriend relationships, they don't belong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.166.43 (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

I took out the Past part because it made it appear as if the character had no present, looked like everything was past, since everything was included under the headline "Past" DJ-Siren 00:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization Nightmare[edit]

The random capitalization in this article is RIDICULOUS! Could someone fix this up? 24.105.143.110 (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

The image looks alot like Jen Lilley and not Kirsten Storms. Kirsten currently has short hair and not long hair. The image is bad. Soapfan2013 (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's Kirsten back in '09 when she briefly sported a longer hairstyle. Trust me, I did my research, it's Kirsten Storms. She hasn't always had short hair. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 18:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of General Hospital characters#Maxie Jones[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was no consensus to merge. --George Ho (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page must be merged to List of General Hospital characters because its topic is not popular by critics and audiences alike. I don't know or hear any praise or criticism from reliable sources, such as books and periodicals. Even I don't see any journal analyze this topic at all. I don't know why this article exists. Is she popular; if so, why? --George Ho (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're requesting to merge an article that's at a length where some would consider splitting. That's just plain disruptive. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any other suggestions? I can't leave this article alone like this. Even this character was portrayed by two actresses. --George Ho (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason it's notable. If you "can't leave the article alone" then improve it. Stop tag-bombing! Joefromrandb (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How notable? Also, I can't tell which details are intricate; they all look fine to me, unless I have skipped. --George Ho (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop tag-bombing! Joefromrandb (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maxie_Jones&action=historysubmit&diff=473302069&oldid=473297163. Anything else? I can't tell when events occured. I tagged "when". Isn't it tag-bombing? I don't know whether her story of a heart-surgery is notable, but I'm working on the first section of plot. Why "yawn" in your edit summary? --George Ho (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Takes deep breath...) Hi. I'm here because this has come up on George's "mentorship" page, and I'm helping with that "mentorship". It seems to me that a good thing to do here would be something like this:

George - start a new section, list, as bullet points, as brief as you can, your concerns.
Then we can address each one in turn, and see what we are left with.

At the moment everyone is trying to discuss 4 things at once (and getting a little too personal). Begoon ^talk 09:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have plans to clean-up the Maxie page, I just need to find the time to do such. I've mentioned this prior. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 04:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had already pointed out your very kind offer to help, here, on George's mentorship page. It would be a great result if you guys could solve the issues on the article in this way, or at least fix as many as possible, so we can see what is left to address then, if anything. Begoon ^talk 04:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I feel like the Maxie page could be extremely well put once it's organized and edited a lot. And I want to do it, I just need time. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 17:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Storyline needs trimming and real-world perspective for general overview[edit]

Since everybody was too concerned about the plot themselves, unfortunately, I don't watch General Hospital. I don't know when the events occured, but I could not tell which ones are trivial to this topic. The only sources I can find to determine importance of storylines are weekly recaps; monthly recaps are better and easier to find, but do they exist? If Reception could not be created, then why should this article exist? --George Ho (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently trying to clean-up the article in my spare time. Stop trying to get soap articles deleted. I said I was working on the page, but I need more than a few weeks, my life doesn't revolve around Wiki. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 20:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a few weeks was not enough time as the article is still incomplete after ten years.

Jen Lilley "Recast"[edit]

i think that she should be listed as a temporary recast because it has been implied that when Kirsten Storms is healthy again she will resume her role.

also, due to fan hatred of Lilley it is highly unlikely that her contract will even be renewed ever. if Storms is still unable to perform there have been rumors of another temporary recast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.194.4 (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you're not a Jen Lilley fan. I highly doubt GH would mess with people's heads and bring Storms back after what looks like a year of absence. Jen is doing an amazing job in the role, and reports have not seemed to point as Storms returning at all, nor has Storms spoken since her originally announced return. The role of Maxie is Jen's now, "haters" need to face that. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 17:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lilley was actually under a short term contract from September to February she was listed with the other contract actors in the end credits. Beginning in February she was moved to the recurring (after Sonya Eddy) since they were filming much of those episodes when Lilley's short term contract expired and they thought Storms would be returning in a few weeks. 50.44.13.49 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)jcar03[reply]

Actually, Jen confirmed herself she never signed a contract at all with a show. She signed on to appear as Maxie and then signed on to continue for the foreseeable future. But she never agreed to a contract since she preferred to be on a loose working schedule. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 17:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Children[edit]

Does the child she carried for Lulu and Dante count as her child, even though she is in no way related to it? I don't think it should be, but it has repeatedly been added back under "children".Caringtype1 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be listed. Even if it was her child the pregnancy was only a few days. Some editors don't think miscarriages should be listed at all. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be kept, she carried it via surrogacy, and the miscarriage is still being mentioned. Jester66 (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think describing it in the storylines section is sufficient. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also is putting it under "children", she had the miscarriage, she was the surrogate mother, it counts. Jester66 (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because she carried the child, it doesn't mean she's related to it.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's the surrogate mother. It still counts. Jester66 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the combination of a surrogacy, a miscarriage and her only being pregnant for one week, I feel it is clutter for the infobox. There are many articles that do not include miscarriages at all. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Someone is actually trying to call an implanted fetus, that she shares no biological connection with, and that she only carried for a week a child? Nope. Frankly, that's really, really stupid. AniMate 00:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a damn miscarriage, who cared if it's only an "implanted fetus" and maybe YOU find it as clutter, but other articles include miscarriages and stillborn. But what do I know. So let's keep it blank since she's not pregnant right now. Jester66 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the fact that the child was miscarried, it's the fact that Maxie was in no way related to the child.Caringtype1 (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]