Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:32, 1 February 2016

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Misplaced Pages. 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Head Image Disputes

It's coming into dispute about the images used for Will. Instead of an edit war, discuss here why you'd like them changed DaBrat so we can discuss this instead of edit waring. As for the head chopped off, it's just how I cropped it. I can re-crop if that bothers you. The "black bars" were apart of the original image. I did not insert them. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to resolve an edit dispute, one of the first steps is to not insult the other user.

I can find better quality versions of the photos if you like; I only made the Patton image smaller because of the rules Misplaced Pages has for high-resolution photos. This was the original size (with no black bars).

Why did you feel the need to crop the photos in the first place? Most of the photos you have been replacing were better than the ones you are using (ie, Marlena and Kate; Kate's head is cropped off and Marlena's image is so wide you can't get a good look at her face). --DrBat (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Mine are of much better quality, yours are far too long height-wise. And it's a head, it's not like I cut their face out. I have the original, UHQ 2200+px version of the image if you want proof concerning the black bars. And to edit, how did I insult you? Musicfreak7676 (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

All the photos for people on Misplaced Pages, fictional or real, are taller than they are wide. Pick a random person and look at their article. Why should these photos be any different?

My username isn't DaBrat. --DrBat (talk)

Sorry about the username dispute-- I was thinking of the female Rapper, aha. And I know you aren't female. Well, just because other articles have them, does that automatically make them correct? No. Longer photos, to me, take up much more space and don't condense the article in any facet. I feel like smaller sized ones keep it looking neat and much more put together and doesn't push any of the boxes sizes. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really feel like getting into another big dispute, so fine keep it your way. --DrBat (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The best place to go is the guidelines on image use. Surely there is a rule. I suggest contacting User:TAnthony. He is well versed in image use guidelines. I will ping him for assistance. Rm994 (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when have all images on Misplaced Pages been "taller than wide" - As far as I'm aware hundreds of UK/AU/NZ soap opera articles use square images - to fit the infobox - but use a small portion of the non-free image. As for BLP images - some are cropped to the subjects face anbd some are not - but they are free images. Non free images are usually more acceptable if you use a low resolution potion of the image.Rain the 1 22:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, aren't those photos in the UK/AU/NZ soap opera articles screenshots, and not cropped promotional images? --DrBat (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. Though I'd point out that you did not specify any type of image - your arguement and you italicized this, was all. I was pointing out that it was simply not the case. Obviously you have reason to point out that they are screenshots, a reason that must be exclusive to promotional images. What would that be?Rain the 1 01:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Because the screenshots are taken from television programs, which are usually 4:3 or 16:9. It's not like the screenshots were originally taller and the users cropped them. And if a screenshot is cropped, it's usually to make them less wide.

In this case, there was already a decent image that didn't need to be modified. --DrBat (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Major editing.

I am somewhat new to Misplaced Pages and I just would like to say that I will be doing some major editing to this article and other articles on Days of Our Lives. I already corrected some bad grammar. (That Will was trilled. I am assuming that Will was Thrilled,as trilled would not make sense.) Also I think that the section On Sexuality should come after Character development, not before,as it ruins the flow of the article, so I will change that tomorrow. I look forward to working with you all on Misplaced Pages.--74.179.215.67 (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The sexuality section was not before the character development section. You also corrected one spelling mistake. So your entire complaint is confusing.Rain the 1 17:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources

• http://www.e x a m i n e r.com/soap-opera-in-national/days-of-our-lives-must-see-tv-for-monday]

• Rain the 1 13:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Will's romances

Why is the "romances" section gone, since Will HAS had a relationship with Mia, Gabi and Sonny and he kissed Neil, so it should be kept in, all other characters have the "romances" section still there. Jester66 (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The only sneaky thing is having these romances removed. The only romance I'd likely contest is Neil, I wouldn't call a one-off kiss a "romance". livelikemusic 21:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I guess we could take Neil's name off, but on some other pages even a kiss is included. But the other 3 should be put up there. Jester66 (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm becoming bored of explaining the difference between inuniverse / real world perspective. I'm tired of hearing the word "should" being thrown around... you should be editing from the real world perspective. If romances are to be included in the infobox, then significant ones from the real world perspective. Romances that had an impact (not on the show, the real world!). Just because I removed the romances does not mean I was denying they happened. I may have been denying the significance. This character become more notable with a gay storyline. And Jester, we all know WP:OTHERSTUFF exists - we all know fansite editors add names each time the characters holds someones hand - but we are talking about Will Horton here.Rain the 1 00:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

He was already notable for being a part of two core families, but fine we won't include the romances portion, you don't have to be rude about it. Jester66 (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not being rude. I'm being patient. Being a part of a soap opera family that are popular with viewers does automatically give a notability pass. He is a late comer and remained largely in the background in terms of high profile storylines that gained coverage in the media.Rain the 1 21:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Will is apart of a supcouple

Will is apart of a supercouple with sonny if you go to list of fictional supercouples will and sonny are their with a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.182.8 (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox images

Why was Patton's promotional image kept over Massey's? The latter is the most famous incarnation of the character. Get it sorted.Rain the 1 14:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

2016 update of article

I am endeavoring to update the article, which when I found it, was significantly out-of-date. Also changes by multiple editors had left portions (notably the latest storylines) with poor readability. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I have spent many days of work endeavoring to update it, expand it, and licking the text into shape. I found all my work undone this morning by Jester66. So I thought would be helpful to explain the reasons for some of the changes that I believe are necessary, reasonable and important:

1) The intro needed updating. The updating inevitably enlarged the intro, so other text needed to be trimmed from it, both to make sure the intro was not too large, and so that the intro has balance. Please look in the body of the article, and I think you will find that stuff that was trimmed from the intro is represented there. The name changes of Will are bewildering, so I created a separate section to explain them, deleted his changing middle name from the intro, and put a quick note in the intro which will help a reader to grasp the surname changes.

2) Several pieces of text have been moved - if something seems to have been deleted, please note that it simply may have been moved.

3) I spent a great deal of time clarifying Will's relationships in the infobox. Undoing it is just vandalism.

4) This is a work in progress. The updating needed doing - please help, rather than erase it all. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Your edits include mass-change in article direction and majority of your edits are invalid and not encyclopedia-like quality; and to continue making them following a valid revert is constituted as vandalism. Nothing should be bolded within the infobox, and capitalizing every single word in each sub-heading is inappropriate. Your adding in original research and creating the article into some fancruft page, instead of keeping it as it is, which is a notable page per the notability guidelines for Misplaced Pages and fictional characters. livelikemusic talk! 13:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class soap opera articles
• WikiProject Soap Operas articles
• C-Class fictional character articles
• WikiProject Fictional characters articles
• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles