Talk:Will Horton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Images

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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)

Editing (2012 discussion)

I am somewhat new to Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.--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]
• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

[4]

• [5]
• [6]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 ^{my talk page!} 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's part of a supercouple

Will is a part 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 image

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)

Undone update (Jan-Feb 2016)

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 addition of 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 Wikipedia and fictional characters. Also, per WP:LEAD, lead paragraphs should not exceeded four paragraphs; you're adding too much information to this article and its lead. livelikemusic talk! 13:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ahem. Edit war police here. (I hope you can tell when I am facetious) Let's try and work this out. livelikemusic, rather than removing all of Aliveness Cascade's work, why don't you discuss what parts of it are not up to standards. e.g, remove the bold in the infobox, reformat the lead, but don't delete everything she's done, as I'm sure a good deal is constructive. Fritzmann2002 14:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002: I have reported them for violating the three-revert rule, as the majority of their edits are not constructive. And I HAVE pointed out the issues with their edits, and rather than try and discuss why they were reverted, they've resulted to edit-warring this issue in an attempt to own their preferred edits to the page. Wikipedia also asks that major mass-changes, which they've made, be discussed on talk pages. They were reverted once, and instead of opening a dialogue before reverting said-changes, they continued on with their editing, and have ignored the talk page. They've ignored their warnings on their talk page to continue on with their disruptive editing. I do not doubt their edits are not in good faith, however, their edits are strict to this one page, and it seems very OWN-worthy, and like a future problematic issue. livelikemusic talk! 14:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe my edits have been constructive. What have I destroyed? Of course I have re-written stuff - please accept that it has been in an attempt to improve it - even if you disagree. I removed an expired link (reference). Perhaps that was the wrong thing to do, I don't know. I am a new editor to this kind of article, and I am genuinely doing my best to improve the article (yes, in "good faith"). I have added material that was necessary to update it. That's the main thing. I adjusted the "characterization" because it was unduly negative towards the character. I them moderated that change myself - as I often do - trying to get a fair balance. Contrary to what is said just above, in response to the first undo, I came onto the talk thread to explain the changes I have made - and here we are discussing them now in the section that I began here. The undo's were done on me - erasing days of work which was made in good faith - these were massive and sweeping changes, in contrast to all my work which had been incremental. I have begun to address concerns. I undid the undos, and set about addressing some concerns. It is not me who is doing sweeping changes. I intend to add more references. Now that I am using Visual Edit that will be easier - I was reluctant to add them when I only knew source edit - because refs make that so difficult to read and edit - so that was going to be the last thing I did. It is reasonable to address my changes piece-by-piece. It is not reasonable to erase them all en masse. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Fritzmann2002 for your input. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC). (Apologies Fritzmann2002- I initially misread livelivemusic's paragraph as your own).

5) When I introduced changes to this pages Infobox, I did point out why in the edit summary : the Soap Character Infobox template is problematic and restrictive. It doesn't include important relatives (important both in the show and in the characters story, such as parents-in-law, and great grandparents - and very important to Will's story - second cousins). When I first used this page (as a viewer, wanting to understand how other characters were related to Will, I found it really unhelpful - as there was a whole bunch of characters in the "other relatives" section (the default infobox category for relations it doesn't have a section for) without any explanation of how they were related to Will. Well - my changes and innovations have fixed this! Frankly, the changes that I introduced to the family section of the infobox have made it *much more helpful* to new viewers and readers of this page. That I believe should be the criterion of how someone judges the changes I did in the infobox. Are they helpful to the reader? And yes they are! Complaints, then, that the formatting and re-arrangement that I applied does not "follow the rules" don't impress me much - frankly they sadden me. I made the infobox much more helpful to the reader, and easier to read, and that's what counts. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

{{Infobox soap character}}, like all other infoboxes, are meant to provide an over-view of detail; not specific details. Your bolding of names, and adding in extra additive information is in violation of what the ibox is there for, as per the template and the WikiProject for Soap Operas. The "other relatives" is reserved for those only needed for complex understanding of whom the character is. Truthfully, you've cluttered the ibox, and have not made it easy to navigate. How it was before is how it should be setup, per the template and the numerous discussions that've been had about it. I will not be reverting it, as that would mean I would be in violation of the 3RR rule, which you've broken and have been reported for, just so you are aware. The intro is still far too detailed and long, per the guideline on leads, which calls that leads should not exceed four paragraphs, and alot of the information added is still far too fancruft, and constitutes original research, though, that has been ignored. livelikemusic talk! 16:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aliveness Cascade: I appreciate all the work you have put into updating this article, and I'm sure some updating was necessary. You have created multiple format issues, however, which to be honest would take a lot of extra work to fix piecemeal. Livelikemusic has made some good points here, perhaps you can start reintroducing some of your changes slowly, allowing other editors to help you along with some of these issues so that as you update the article you are learning, and you won't be creating an MOS issues.— TAnthony^Talk 16:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I should add, your attitude above in your section "5)" is problematic. There are hundreds of quality articles which prove that content can be presented in a reader-friendly and helpful way within the existing regulations and MOS, and many of these rules were instituted because articles like this got out of control with unencyclopedic information and presentation. This is not SoapOperaPedia so look at the big picture. And by the way, just because a character's second cousins are "Important" to his storyline does not mean they have to be in the infobox. That's what the prose part of the article is for, explaining plot and character relationships in a concise way.— TAnthony^Talk 16:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@TAnthony: sums it all up and I agree with him. However, @Livelikemusic:, if this happens again, maybe don't delete all of an editor's hard work, but instead talk with them and explain what could be done to compromise. Fritzmann2002 17:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I was actively addressing concerns when the page was reverted again, so my efforts to address the concerns were wiped out. I had already decapitalized the titles. I had trimmed the intro, and was trimming it more, in an effort to comply with the guidelines. I wish that folks here follow @Fritzmann2002:'s reasonable suggestion - not next time - but now! @TAnthony: You say that you "appreciate all the work you have put into updating this article" - after deleting everything I have written! All my changes have been incremental. And other folks delete them all in one fell sweep, and label me as a vandal and war-mongerer from the off. Welcome to Wikipedia! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aliveness Cascade: I appreciate that you agree with my viewpoint, but I feel others would be more accepting of yours (which is valid but not approached correctly) if you didn't uppercut Wikipedia's base rules and anti-vandalism techniques. Understand that there are many other people who do what you did, but they did it maliciously, not in good faith. I hope you guys figure this out, I'll leave you to it. Fritzmann2002 18:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again @Fritzmann2002:. I was writing the following when you posted (we cross posted). I'll add it anyway : Stepping outside wikipedia's technical terms a moment (I don't understand them yet anyway) it seems disingenuous to delete en masse a person's work, (rather than edit it constructively, or open a discussion about it), and label them a vandal and a war-mongerer, it certainly isn't being polite or welcoming to a new editor. When Jester66 began by undoing all my work, it was without any comment or explanation - without an edit summary. That's rude, unfriendly, and nasty from the off. When I (quite naturally) reverted that, livelivemusic, stepped in and undid all my work again. livelivemusic did add an edit summary "Stop with your on-going vandalism to this page". Again that's rude, unfriendly, and nasty from the off - and also explanation free. So naturally I reverted that. I make no apology for my next statement : it seems to me that these more experienced editors are using their Wikipedia experience to be brutish to, and bully a new editor - rather than behave civilly and constructively - whatever the rights and wrongs of my actual edits are. Jester66 and livelivemusic opened with rudeness towards me. I humbly suggest that the most important thing here is to actually have consideration for each other, and be civil about editing, and it isn't the rights and wrongs of particular edits, and it saddens me to find Wikipedia to be like this - but hey, Welcome to the Internet - of course it is no different to the rest of it! :-) Aliveness Cascade (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Aliveness Cascade, I understand your frustration and I'm sorry if you feel like your work is being disrespected. Nothing is lost, and like I said, some material can always be reintroduced. Your changes were technically incremental, but it was a huge change involving dozens of edits in a row, making any kind of copyediting difficult and time consuming. It will be easier for other editors to digest your changes if material can be reintroduced section by section, in your most corrected form. I should point out, however, several issues I see with your additions that would need addressing:

• Infobox: This infobox is used in thousands of articles, and is a spin off of {{Infobox character}}, which is just as widely used. Consensus has determined the current formatting, and it is inappropriate to thwart that by adding your own boldface, for example. The soap opera infobox also has a lot more flexibility related to family members than the standard box, but even then, consensus has created limits. An infobox is not an abbreviated version of the article, it is a concise overview of key facts and a navigation tool. Overstuffing it impacts readability, defeats its purpose and makes these character articles look unencyclopedic.
• Overlinking: Per the MOS, we link an item at its first use and usually not again. You linked the same characters over and over, even in the same paragraph, a sentence apart. This negatively affects readability.
• Editor POV/Original research: Unsourced statements like "The character of Will is unique in Days of Our Lives, in that he was both born onscreen and grew up onscreen without being rapidly-aged to a teenager or adult, unlike other child characters on the soap" are a problem because they represent an editor's opinion that is not backed up by a reliable source. We cannot ourselves say what is "unique", or come to a conclusion about the aging of characters on our own, we can only report what journalists or people involved in the show might say, as quoted in reliable sources. This is also true for your character description, in which you seemed to make statements that were not attributed to an outside source.
• In-universe headings: Wikipedia articles, even those about fictional characters and topics, need to be written from a real world perspective. While I agree that the plot section should be split up into sections to improve readability, literary headings like "An unbelievable aftermath" are unencyclopedic (plus, editors cannot decide what is "unbelievable"). It is more appropriate to create sections based on dates, performers, etc. Headings like "Marital problems" or "Relationships" could be appropriate if the content demands it, but in this case the notable info on those topics couldn't fill an entire section.
• Plot: Plot summaries are concise overviews of storylines, not detailed recaps that are practically day by day or scene by scene. I'm happy to help trim the material, but it's a waste of time for you to write a lot of excess material and another waste of time for other editors to copyedit it down to a more appropriate length. Your description of the last year's storyline was longer than all of the character's plot before that, ever. The "Character name" section was also constructed in a trivial/crufty way.

I don't expect you to be a perfect editor (none of us are) but I have to remind you that this is a collaborative effort. Again, I'm happy to help you with this, but you have to be ready to compromise, and accept that fact that you may not be as experienced as other editors with content rules. Some editors who have worked on this article may feel strongly about certain things, and they may be right and they may be wrong, so they will have to compromise too.— TAnthony^Talk 19:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @TAnthony:, for taking the time to expand on problems with my edits - and thank you for the offer of help. I regret that I don't really have much more time to put into this - and I am going to cut my losses. (Funnily enough, I do have a source for the "unsourced statement" that you use as an example, and would have added it - but that's by the by). I was expanding the storyline section by section. I just didn't start at the top! I understand that you are saying such expansion is not appropriate. On the other hand, I do see other articles with more detailed, and longer storylines than this had - and it seems to me that the "depth" of storylines is a judgement call. I'm sad to see the expanded storylines go - and, while it is just my opinion, I think my storyline contributions had a good info-content/length ratio, and read well.

I don't understand the criticism that the "Character name" box was constructed in a "trivial/crufty" way. It is important info for a reader to know the different names that the character was called. The sequence of Will Robert Reed -> Will Reed Roberts -> Will Roberts-Horton -> Will Robert Horton (and not Will Robert Horton-Kiriakis), does require explanation, and the name "Will Roberts" should appear on this page, as the character was credited as it for much of his childhood.

I came to this article first as a user - watching Will videos online - and I needed info from it to help me understand the character and the story. My take on this is very much informed by that experience - and I wanted to make it more helpful in that regard - as well as update it. I believe that's what I did, and what I was doing before the plug was pulled.

Anyway - time to cut my losses.

PS. @TAnthony:: Regarding the family content of the infobox - I think the idea that I put forward in the edit summary is the best way to do it - namely the template should be changed to have a separate hidden and expandable section for extended family : "Family" (for parents, sibling, kids, spouses), and "Extended Family" (for uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents etc). I totally believe this is the way forward, and that this article would benefit from that. (What I did was always a compromise - and I admitted that upfront) — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) 20:59, February 1, 2016

Well I hope you eventually are able to come back and contribute. I'm sorry if you felt that Jester and livelikemusic were rude or unwelcoming, I know both of them are active editors and not the type for uncivil behavior, but I also know that things sometimes get tense when debating article content. No one is 100% right or wrong here, there are positive things about the existing article and things that need improvement, and there are also positive and negative aspects to your changes. There are still many many soap opera articles that need a lot of work, but may of them, like this one, have been improved to more closely adhere to Wikipedia-wide guidelines so that they are not targets for deletion. This is a larger conversation to be had, but some of the things you are talking about, like a section devoted to explaining Will's last name and lists of every character he is related to, are the kinds of things that were long ago identified as trivial fancruft by editors outside of the Soap WikiProject.— TAnthony^Talk 22:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Pre-Discussion of article issues & potential changes

Storyline issues

There are major issues in some of the current storyline text. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Tense (fixed)

The storyline begins being told in the present (good I think - I don't know the standard - but I much prefer this), but by the end of it is being told in the past. It does need to be one or the other. I suggest all main narrative thread be put in the present, as I did in my re-writes that were undone. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Present tense is indeed proper for fiction at WP, and I've updated the plot section.— TAnthony^Talk 06:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @TAnthony: Aliveness Cascade (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Poor writing (fixed)

Some of the writing is quite poor - bad english and stuff - bad construction - factual errors. For example the current last line :
"His death caused Sonny had never got a chance to forgive him for his affair with Paul, and Sami returns to his funeral. In December 2015, less one month after his death, Ben was later arrested for the murder of Paige, Serena and Will."
I fixed all this kind of thing in my rewrite of the Paul Narita saga, and the Will's End stuff. What I did was better written - and it was engaging because it drew in the beats of the actual story. And it was all undone. So a challenge to the folks who just undid all my hard work - why don't you go in fix it yourselves, instead of undoing (destructive) and leaving it a mess? Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC) @TAnthony: @Fritzmann2002: @Livelikemusic: @Jester66:

Aliveness Cascade, as you can see I've started cleaning up the article. I agree that the current plot summary is unacceptable (I only copyedited the first part), and I was planning to go through your plot summary to determine how to proceed. What you wrote seems better written, but like I said previously it is way too long/detailed and the multiple links are a problem that has to be fixed. I wouldn't object to your adding back some of the plot if you can remove the links and be open to potential trimming by myself or other editors.— TAnthony^Talk 23:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay @TAnthony:, thanks, I'm too busy for anything but tweaks at the moment though. And I also prefer mainly to be opening up discussions at the moment - I want this collaborative process to work.

@TAnthony:. Wouldn't copy and pasting the text remove the links in one go - easy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliveness Cascade (talk • contribs) 23:54, February 2, 2016

Yes we can copy and paste your links away, and copyedit your 18,000 characters of plot summary, but the point is that other editors should not have to work so hard to fix your contributions when you have added so much material without much consideration of the Manual of Style.— TAnthony^Talk 06:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added to and rewritten the plot summary, using your previous rewrite as a starting point. My addition may need some tweaking, but it should show you the level of detail we're talking about. The beat by beat coverage may be interesting and thorough, but Wikipedia plot summaries need to be concise overviews that hit key points but do not get mired in details like, for example, four sentences about Will writing and throwing balls of paper into the trash. I should tell you, that while your version was engaging and reminded me of the soap opera recaps we see on the soap opera blogs, much of it was not written in an encyclopedic style. By this I mean, phrasing like "Amazingly, no one sees this" and "Unbelievably, no one in Salem" are examples of an editor inserting their personal point of view (WP:Editorializing); the use of exclamation points in narration ("he can help Paul come out!") expresses surprise/emotion in a way that is unencyclopedic in tone; and your occasional commentary, like your explanations of the lack of investigation into Will's death, is unacceptable per Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in that you have inserted your own opinions, unsupported by or not attributed to any reliable sources. I would not expect you to have a full grasp of the Wikipedia Manual of Style right off the bat, but hopefully this might help explain why some editors objected so strongly to your contributions.— TAnthony^Talk 06:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@TAnthony: Thank you so much for doing this. I can see you have taken time and care, and I noticed "beats" which appeared to be taken from my earlier attempt. Thank you too for the kind explanation above. I appreciate the more "encylopedic" nature. Please pardon me for not giving more appreciative/constructive comment and contributions, my time for this has been slashed - and a quick thank you and a perhaps a tweak is all I can say/do for now. (I also appreciate your wording regarding the arrest - as what was there before felt badly unrepresentative of what actually happened).Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Childhood storyline too skimpy

I appeal to editors who actually watched the show in the Carpenter, Weiss, and Gerse eras to consider expanding the childhood section. There's fifteen years of story, that is very under-represented. I'd certainly like to read it! One thing that would be helpful to readers is an outline of the how EJ DiMera effected Will's family and life in his earlier years - as this led to pretty cataclysmic events for Will in the Massey era. I think the about.com article's coverage of this period is better than here. (http://daysofourlives.about.com/od/CurrentCharacterProfiles/a/Profile-Of-Will-Horton.htm Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sections

@TAnthony: I think the section about the SORASing of Will when Patton was cast and the news over Will's murder should be in the Development section of the article with the storylines. Jester66 (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@TAnthony: @Jester66: Dylan Patton (born 1992) is younger than Christopher Gerse (born 1991). There was no sorassing. Will got a wee bit younger!  :-) Aliveness Cascade (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aliveness Cascade: @TAnthony:, Patton and Gerse's ages have nothing to do with Will's age. It was stated once Patton returned that Will was older. What about the section on Will's death? Jester66 (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@TAnthony: @Jester66: "mature" as in emotionally mature. Thanks for restoring the source @TAnthony:.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Jester66, I did see your suggestion about adding some of the Patton/Massey casting into to the Development section. When I get a chance I think I am going to do a little reworking of those sections so afterwards let me know what you think. Thanks! — TAnthony^Talk 16:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Awards and nominations (re-located)

... are currently first paragraph in Reception. As they're all about the actors, would they be better placed in Casting (at the end of that section) ??? Aliveness Cascade (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

No, these typically go under "Reception" or "Impact", though we could create a subsection called Awards if necessary.— TAnthony^Talk 02:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, @TAnthony: I think at the bottom of "Reception" where you've now put it *is* better. It makes the "Reception" section begin with what you'd expect - talk about what's been broadcast. And chronologically, awards come after viewing and reactions. So yes that makes sense and looks good to me. It felt odd to me when it was above reactions. Thank you!  :-) Aliveness Cascade (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Image locations

@TAnthony: I have moved Dylan's pic from Reception to Storyline - to opposite his introduction there, and I have re-captioned it appropriately. Please do reverse/change if you don't like it. There are pros and cons to this move. Pros : Chandler Massey is the award winner, so if anyone should have a pic near the Awards section, it is him. Having a pic of Dylan and not Massey there seems weird, so why not move Dylan's pic to where he is in the story. Dylan's pic was left opposite critics reception of Massey's gay storyline, when the awards paragraph was moved down the section, so it wasn't placed appropriately anyway. Cons : Dylan's entry in the storyline is so short that the picture overlaps into the Chandler era. It appears to be an Emmy ceremony pic, so perhaps it should be placed by Awards - but it is the only pic of Dylan we currently have. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be great to have pictures of each actor. Casting is the obvious place to have pictures next to. Unfortunately Casting is oppposite the Infobox. Input appreciated. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The infobox is actually equipped to handle 3 images itself, but the Commons image of Massey would probably look weird in the infobox.— TAnthony^Talk 18:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

References

@TAnthony: - what was up with the references? The references were generated automatically by Visual Editor. If they're okay by it - what's the problem?

That's weird that it is autogenerating English into the citations, because there are bots programmed to remove that on English Wikipedia. The point is that citations on English Wikipedia are/should be in English by default (and most of them are), and it would cause much clutter if every citation specified English. I don't use Visual Editor, so if it's a hassle to not specify English then it's no big deal, a bot will fix it eventually.— TAnthony^Talk

FYI, I think the documentation for all relevant cite templates specifies "The language in which the source is written, if not English" for |language=.— TAnthony^Talk 19:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @TAnthony:. It's pretty much all a mystery to me. I just copied the urls into the Visual Editor dialogue box, and hit insert, and it did the rest. I have no desire to use source for references. Life's too short!  :-) Aliveness Cascade (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Casting

I came across an article that interested me. Apparently, they were planning to sorass Will in 2005, let Gerse go, and employ an older actor. They went so far as to look for a new actor. But they changed their minds, after coming up with a new story for young Will. http://soapcentral.com/days/news/2005/0711-gerse.php Aliveness Cascade (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Reception

Murder

@TAnthony: @Fritzmann2002: I have been BOLD and expanded and updated "Reception" to cover the reaction to killing off Will: a much needed and belated update imo! I thought I'd better crack on with it, as given rumors arising in the last week, it won't be long before the character's resurrection is announced!  :-) I've done my best with adding as many references as I could. I am a newbie and this is a steep learning curve - so please be kind! Thank you! I've archived as many of the references as I could. I found that the internet archive will not archive disqus comment threads, so I haven't archived references which have these. I found one particular disqus comment thread as very illustrative of backlash to the killing of Will, so I have included it as a reference. What I have done is not depend on this reference, but put in an archiveable back up reference to compliment this. I have quoted tweets of a jounalist and a published author, and of a fan (which is published in a referenced article). Tweets give typically give opinion (as they do here), and I feel therefore that their inclusion in the "Reception" section is appropriate. I have archived these too. I hope that any comments will be constructive, and I hope that you find it a good read! Thank you. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I should tell you that fan comments posted on articles or on message boards are NOT acceptable sources. If a reliable source (like Fairman himself) is reporting on fan reactions, as in writing that "many fans are upset that Will was killed" or something like that, then that is acceptable.— TAnthony^Talk 23:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@TAnthony: What's the point of "Reception" then if the audience has NO say. Ridiculous rule. What a waste of time. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@TAnthony: To call members of the soap press "reliable" (as regards to their take on the product they basically are in the business of selling) is just ridiculous. It's a case of Reality VS Silly Rules.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think if you look at the big picture, you will understand why we rely on reliable sources like journalists to preserve Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Soap opera topics are no different. The opinions of individual fans are not helpful for any topic. Any notable reactions to storylines or works is generally reflected in the reporting.— TAnthony^Talk 23:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, I took a quick glance, and fan griping about who wasn't at the funeral doesn't sound like a huge loss, if it was a notable problem then a "real" journalist would probably comment on it. And if no one from an actual media outlet mentions something, then it is just not notable enough to be in an article.— TAnthony^Talk 00:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@TAnthony: This article going back to be one-sided instead of neutral again. Jester66 (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Wedding

@TAnthony: @Fritzmann2002: Reception to this is important and lacking. I would like to put in reception to the wedding - the first wedding of two men in US daytime. Bit burnt out at the moment, after working on the murder section, but hope to get to it!  :-) Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Marital conflict

@TAnthony: @Fritzmann2002: Reception to this would also be good. Again, I'm burnt out, but hope to get to it soon! I think it can be short and sweet. End of year Soap Opera Digest - they gave it "Worse Marital Conflict" two years in a row - should cover it swiftly and briefly. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Intro

An issue here was fixed by @TAnthony: - Thank you. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Names

I think it is best to restore previous surnames that someone has deleted. I can't give you figures, but I believe the character was credited as "Will Roberts" for a substantial part of the character's screen life. To not include it at the top does strike me as "unencyclopedic", and including "Reed" as well makes sense. What do you think? @TAnthony: @Fritzmann2002: Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The current consensus is that all the "extra name" nonsense can go in the infobox in the "other names" parameter. Info like that is so trivial, it doesn't belong in the lead.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cebr1979:@TAnthony: @Fritzmann2002: I agree middle names are unnecessary here. I agree that having "formerly Roberts, originally Reed" right up front is a bit clunky, but I do think it is important that this info is diplayed prominently in some manner. And I disagree that names are "nonsense" and "trivial". Names are vital! Names are keys to all the information available about a person or character. Some real world examples : it's important to know that Jackie Onassis was Jackie Kennedy; it's important to know that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is Pope Francis; it's important to know that Cherie Booth is Cherie Blair; and to take a Days example, it is important to know that Marlene Clark Poulter is Marlene McPherson. Will was credited and known as Will Roberts for a good part of the character's onscreen life, and it is therefore important information which deserves to be displayed prominently - Darian Weiss and Christopher Gerse were credited as such, and information on the web about their time on the show is best found searching under "Will Roberts" - (that's an example where names are keys to info!). Also, @Cebr1979: you have taken this info from the intro without adding it elsewhere. I don't think that is justifiable. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, at the time of writing, there is no consensus under the link Cebr1979 calls "current consensus" - there is a discussion without a settled conclusion Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the character was credited as "Will Roberts", and referred to as such in the real world media, seems to me to be decisive. Given that, the mention of "Reed" as the original name is important to maintain clarity. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I got as far as "some real world examples" and then stopped. You clearly don't get it.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"got as far as ... then stopped". Wow!  :-) Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

So let me re-state the bit you didn't bother to read or address: the character was credited as Will Roberts in the Carpenter, Weiss, and Gerse eras, and was referred to as such in the real world media, and therefore that is key information that should be prominently displayed somehow, because like all names, it is a label which identifies, and is a key which unlocks information, when say, searching on the world wide web. @Cebr1979:, you took out information from the article - so it seems to me that there is something here you are not getting. Further you mis-represented a discussion as a "consensus" - when no consensus had been reached. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You're sorta talking a whole bunch without really saying anything. So you agree "previously etc..." is clunky but you're complaining because the previous name got taken out. Circles don't get a conversation anywhere.Cebr1979 (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cebr1979:I was adding Will Roberts and Will Reed to the infobox whilst you were typing that. Here I opened a discussion to get to a better solution than just removing the names (which is what you did), and contributed as well as I am able. So sorry I don't meet your high standards of dialogue. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Myself and other editors have already stated other names can go in the other names parameter of the infobox. You just had a long drawn out talk to "come up with" a solution everyone else already had.Cebr1979 (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cebr1979:I neither came up with it, nor made claim to do so. Please don't misrepresent me! Why are you criticizing me for trying to find a solution to a problem you created, and knew how to solve, but didn't implement? I am grateful for the solution. I am a new editor, and I didn't know of it, or how to implement it. And I did not initially see that your "current consensus" was a link. I am glad to have learned something by implementing this. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

There was no problem created by anyone. Nonsense clutter names can go in the infobox. You didn't read that. You were trying to come up with a solution that was already there from the get-go. Please stop pinging me to a conversation that's over.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Grammar

Days of Our Lives: plural of singular?

I'm no expert on grammar. This is my take! When we are talking about the product it is certainly singular, but when we are talking about the production team it can be plural. For example : "Days of Our Lives is on at five"; but "Days of Our Lives are doing location shoots again". Also, when the name itself is plural, as it is in this case, the plural form of the verb is more likely to be used, because it sounds right - and that is normal practice. I am changing back a line back in the intro to the plural form, because the singular usage is very jarring to me, and takes me right out of the text. I appreciate that people's experience and dialect, and therefore what seems right to them, is bound to differ. @TAnthony:@Cebr1979:

"Days of our Lives are doing location shoots again" makes no sense.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I completely disagree in regards to the sentence in the lead, and I don't think I've ever seen a show referred to in the plural on Wikipedia or in an outside source. It is a collective term, and frankly what sounds normal to you is jarring to me, and I'd guess most other readers. If you were to specify "the DAYS writers" then fine, but even saying "the DAYS production team" is singular.— TAnthony^Talk 17:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@TAnthony:@Cebr1979: I looked it up! No one is wrong. It's a British-English and American-English difference, that I didn't know about. As Americans outnumber the Brits their usage (usually singular) wins here!  :-)

Comparison_of_American_and_British_English#Formal_and_notional_agreement Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"Original research" and "fan's point of view"

I came here today to thank @TAnthony: for his work in making the text I contributed Wikipedia-compliant. Thank you @TAnthony:! However, I see that another editor, @Jester66:, has taken a different view, and added, after TAnthony's careful edit, and without comment or explanation, tags at the top of the article saying "This article possibly contains original research", and "This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view". I open this section in talk, so that Jester66, or anyone else, might add substance to these claims, and to aid a collaborative approach in resolving any substantial problems that there may be. @Fritzmann2002: Aliveness Cascade (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I was glad to help, but there are the parts of the article I never really went through carefully to which Jester could be referring. For example, I removed fan comments used as citations in the Reception section but have not read through that section in its entirety as yet. I know Jester66's work so when I saw the tags I assumed they were valid.— TAnthony^Talk 14:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No edit summary reason was given for the tags inclusion (which is against the guidelines), and in over three months neither that editor or any other has put forth reason why they should be included. Hence I have removed the tags Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I came here to read about the character. I've never seen such a confusing, poorly written article. It's full of fan cruft, why does this article mention a tweet by some person who is not notable? Also how many reactions are needed about the character being killed? One or two reactions from reliable sources are enough.. No need to include everyone who didn't care for the death of a fictional character. Grammar needs cleaning up as well. 76.123.200.158 (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few examples of what is wrong with this article- Langford later criticized the storyline for not developing fast enough. He said Will's scenes with Marlena were "nice" because Massey and Hall have "terrific chemistry". Who is HE? Langford? On October 9, fan "Mistress Euclid" tweeted Days of Our Lives, saying "Will Horton was a beacon in the face of bullying and persecution. Today, you expect LGBTQ youth to watch his life strangled away. Who is Mistress Euclid? Is this person notable? Tony S did too, writing "Will was just as fit as any other Salem heartthrob, but was so discombobulated by a toss to the fridge that he couldn't fight back. Alllll riiiggghhhttt", and "he had a child and husband to live for – to fight for – yet the writers seemed like he couldn't die fast enough." Who is Tony S? Under Reception is one sentence- Luke Kerr of Zap2it opined that Will is an important role within the series. Will who? Will Rogers? Will Smith? I'm not quite sure Zap2it is a reliable source to begin with, but that doesn't matter since the link is dead. 76.123.200.158 (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The ridiculously long list of family members in the info box needs to be cut down to parent and siblings, and his children. No need for a list of first cousins. This isn't ancestory . Com 76.123.200.158 (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The viewer response tweets currently included were published in Hollywood Life -the reference is there right on the page. Who is Tony S? The article says so who he is in the text: "Tony S of soapcentral.com". He's a soapcentral columnist. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Zap2it.com is a TV listings and magazine website, with TV news and commentary. Yes the page for that particular article referenced has expired, and it does not seem to have been archived. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I've edited the reception section to make it clear that the quoted social media viewer reactions were *published* in the soap media.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

With regards to the infobox - cousins, and all types of relatives there listed are included in the soap character infobox template. That is why they are there. Issues with that maybe best taken up at the template level. The whole thing is by default collapsed, so I don't see an issue. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Luke Kerr is the publisher of DaytimeConfidential.com a major professional soap website. Old soap articles from Zap2it.com have been relocated there. I've found the article, and will restore the link when I next come by. Its use in Reception is a repeat of its use in the intro, so I'll remove the repeat when I do so. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Done! Also re-jigged intro in response to criticism. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Pictures

Now that the character is dead, there is a strong case to have Chandler Massey in the infobox picture, as he is the actor who played Will for the most episodes (over twice as many as Wilson, and almost three times as many as Gerse), and who won awards for it. But it would be far better to have a picture of him *in* the role. (And there is already a picture of Chandler in the article). The Guy Wilson pic should still be kept in the article @Camnact:. I would like to see a picture for each of the actors in the article - but inserting pictures is not something I know about. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. I would like to see a picture for each of the actors too, and it would be far better to have a picture of Massey *in* the role, but unfortunately I don't know how to upload new pictures either. Camnact (talk)

Recent expansion of intro by Camnact

I'm no expert on wikipedia, but I'll tell you @Camnact:what was told me when I started editing this article: the intro shouldn't be more than four paragraphs, and the contents index should be visible on a regular screen. A case can be made for a line about Chandler Massey's noted performance in the intro, and perhaps one about the quality of the "coming out story", but I believe the rest of the material you've added properly belongs in "Reception". @TAnthony: can probably point you in the right direction about editing guidelines. (Also, A Facebook fanpage of videos would not be a valid reference.) Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments, I'm new to contributing here and I hope I can improve with time. As you suggested I restored the intro into 4 paragraphs, and shortened the reference to the writing and performance in the coming out storyline. As it was considered one of the most significant stories told by the show in its last years, I think it's justified mentioning it in the intro. Regarding the facebook fanpage as reference, the post in the page includes the link to the photograph, and I thought it was a good idea to offer a link to the scenes the quote referred to. Again, thank you very much for your comments. Camnact (talk)

Thank you for interacting @Camnact:. Also, Will's coming out was not the show's "first gay storyline". The arrival of Sonny Kiriakis, plus his coming out to his uncle, and all that came before. Sonny was on the show 6 months before Will came out, and Sonny's early storylines, including the gay-bashing of Sonny by T, and the gay-bashing of Sonny via the website, happened before Will came out. Plus, I hear there has been some minor stuff in the past pre-Sonny and Will. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for re-editing your input @Camnact:, and apologies because I have totally re-written that, to fix issues mentioned plus other things like references, and because anything in quote marks needs to be actual quotes - not something you've stitched together. I hope it is still in the spirit of what you intended.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Camnact: I have added quotes from the references that you introduced to the article to the Reception section. They are good articles to cite from, so thank you for bringing them here.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Possessive Form

@Livelikemusic: has twice changed the line Will's surname is changed to Lucas's to Will's surname is changed to Lucas'. There is no rule saying that adding 's is not acceptable. Generally speaking BOTH adding 's and adding just an apostrophe are accepted forms. However, there is a clear choice here: to follow how it would be pronounced. And it is necessarily pronounced Lucas's as Will's name was not changed to Lucas, but to Roberts. Maybe words don't sound in your head when you read stuff, livelikemusic, but they do in mine and in many others, so having "Will's surname is changed to Lucas" play in the head of the reader is weird and confusing. So livelikemusic, there is no sound cause for insisting on removing the s as it is an acceptable form, but there is a justification for keeping it so that it is spelt as it would be pronounced. Please listen to reason on this and restore the 's. Thank you.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

As I have learned in school and based upon the addition research I have done, Lucas' would be correct, as it is not required or necessary to write it as "Lucas's". To avoid this conflict, I suggest the sentence be re-written to avoid this kind of conflict, as I feel that to be the best solution. livelikemusic talk! 21:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

There really is no need @Livelikemusic:. Lucas's is an accepted form, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style makes this clear, as it makes clear that both are accepted practices, and both are used. And there is a clear case to use Lucas's in this instance. Are you going to remove all the Lucas's from Lucas's theorem, Lucas critique, E. V. Lucas, Caroline Lucas, etc etc? I hope not! (George Lucas is an example where both have been used - at the time of writing this - probably by different editors)

People even use *both* forms when speaking. The same person may say "It's James' book!" as well as "It's James's!". The former is just the natural abbreviation of speech, and the latter requires the 's so that the right meaning is conveyed. People do this naturally without thinking about it. They don't re-write the sentence in their heads to avoid a James's!! No, not at all, because it's totally natural to add an s to convey possessives. (I illustrate with James because I have a James in the family).

Here's a real example from Vanity Fair which uses Lucas's: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/02/lucas_qanda200802

Whatever our personal preferences MOS makes clear both are acceptable, and I have already explained why Lucas's is the natural choice here.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic:When I re-read MOS, I realized it comes down in favor of Lucas's - see below!

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Possessives says: "there are two practices advised by different grammar and style guides" and tells us to stick to one of these practices in an article.

Practice One: Add 's. This gives Lucas's.

Practice Two: Add 's or just ' according to how the possessive is pronounced. (For me that is Lucas's again).

As practice one is definite, the easiest way of avoiding conflict is to use practice one! I suggest we do that! Practice two adds subjectivity. I would say Lucas's, just as I would say boss's: "Don't sit in the boss's chair!" and "Don't sit in Lucas's chair!". I would find it downright weird if someone said "Don't sit in the boss' chair!" and "Don't sit in Lucas' chair!". In fact, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Possessives gives Morris's as an example of following pronunciation, and because Lucas is a word with the same pattern of pronunciation as Morris, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Possessives comes down solidly in favor of Lucas's. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

In addition: notice that 's is pronounced with a -z- sound not an -s- sound. It is proper nouns that already end in a -z- sound, which tend to be spoken without an additional -z- sound, for example: Dickens', Chambers', Socrates'. In contrast proper nouns that end in a -s- sound, such as Morris and Lucas, get an -iz- sound added to the end: Morris's, Lucas's. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I still do not feel comfortable leaving it the way it is now, given my school years — as it does not feel grammatically correct — and I am [again] requesting it be re-written in a way that it avoids this conflict, and please, you don't have to continue to link me to this discussion; it's on my watch list. livelikemusic talk! 13:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. You are not engaging in the points I have put forward. Basically, your argument is "my school years" and your "feeling". The guidance from wikipedia indicates Lucas's is the correct form to use on wikipedia. Why should we go against that? Why is your feeling more important than wikipedia's style guidance?

Tell me, do you yourself say "Thomas's girlfriend", "Lucas's girlfriend", or do you say "Thomas' girlfriend" and "Lucas' girlfriend"? I'm asking what you yourself actually say in practice (not what you were told to write in school). I'm asking what you actually say, in order to understand where you are coming from.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

This extract, from a proof-reading site is pertinent to this discussion: How to form the possessive of polysyllabic personal names ending with the sound of s or z probably occasions more dissension among writers and editors than any other orthographic matter open to disagreement. Some espouse the rule that the possessive of all such names should be formed by the addition of an apostrophe only. Such a rule would outlaw spellings like "Dylan Thomas's poetry," "Roy Harris's compositions," and Maria Callas's performance" in favor of "Thomas'," "Harris'," and "Callas'," which would not commend themselves to many. Other writers and editors simply abandon the attempt to define in precise phonic or orthographic terms the class of polysyllabic names to which only the apostrophe should be attached and follow a pragmatic rule. In essence this is, "If it ends with a z sound, treat it like a plural; if it ends with an s sound, treat it like a singular." Thus they would write "Dickens', Hopkins', Williams'," but also "Harris's, Thomas's, Callas's" and the like. Source: https://www.proofreadnow.com/blog/bid/84201/Possessives-Proper-Nouns Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Grace

Restored Grace Brady to infobox as an adopted sister. I'm opening this section so folks can discuss whether this is a good idea or not. Technically she was not adopted - that was Sami's lie to Will. Sami actually thought Grace was hers. *Will* believed she was adopted, as that's what Sami told him. Will certainly considered her to be his baby sister - at least when he'd got used to the idea! :-)

An alternative to Grace Brady (adopted), would be Grace Brady (baby-switch). I don't know what's best, but the latter is correct.

They only found out after she'd died that she wasn't Sami's. So, during her lifetime, she was Sami's daughter, and Will's sister. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I've changed that now to Grace Brady (non-biological), which I am content with - as it's the plain truth and fits! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Move: Will Horton (Will Roberts)

The article for Will's dad Lucas has been bouncing back and forth between Lucas Roberts and Lucas Horton multiple times. Apparently different editors feel very strongly that it should be one or the other, and there has been a move war. The bouncing back and forth has stopped only because someone has locked it. I stepped in at Talk:Lucas_Roberts to propose a solution - that the article be located at Lucas Horton (Lucas Roberts) - which should satisfy all parties - and also is, I think, an appropriate article name for that character. I have explained my rationale there, at Talk:Lucas_Roberts.

I think it is very good idea - it makes sense - that there be a concordance between the articles for Will and Lucas. In the show Lucas changed his and Will's surname at the same time. It makes sense that, whatever the names of the articles are, that they are in harmony with each other. With this in mind, I propose that *this* article be moved to Will Horton (Will Roberts) at the same time. Nevertheless, the main reason I would like to see *this* article at Will Horton (Will Roberts) is that I think it is right for *this* article.

Much was made, when they killed Will off, of the importance that the character "grew up on screen". Well he grew up on screen as "Will Roberts". Darian Weiss played Will Roberts, and was credited as such. Chris Gerse played Will Roberts and was credited as such. I don't know whether the twins were ever credited on screen, but, they were playing Will Roberts too. From 1997 to 2007 the character and credit-name was "Will Roberts" - ten years! From 2009 to 2015 the character and credit-name was "Will Horton" - only six years. The character was established under the name of "Will Roberts" (yeah I know the babies were "Will Reed" for the first two years, but Will's character was established as "Will Roberts"). If you want to find info about the character from that time, you have to search on "Will Roberts". But mainly my position on this matter comes out of respect for the work of the child actors who created this character: it is out of respect for the work of Darian Weiss and Chris Gerse and the twins, that I believe the article should be located at Will Horton (Will Roberts). They deserve the article on the character they created to have the name of the character as part of the article name. Hence I propose and recommend that we move this article to Will Horton (Will Roberts)- with Will Horton and Will Roberts re-directing there. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Well I moved it! Also updated the Will Roberts (fiction) redirect to the new target.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I have never seen an article title disambiguated like this, and I actually think it violates standard naming. Is there a precedent you can point to?— TAnthony^Talk 15:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted this move, let's see how the Lucas Roberts move discussion goes but I don't think this is proper disambiguation.— TAnthony^Talk 16:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Good article nomination?

Aliveness Cascade, you've done a lot of work on this article, how do you feel about nominating it for Good status?— TAnthony^Talk 16:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind remark! Good article status? As a fan, that would be wonderful!  :-)

However, I am conscious that there are significant omissions: in development there is nothing about the creation of the character, and nothing about the development to a character-in-its-own-right when Weiss was introduced as a sorased Will. There is almost nothing in development about the childhood of the character, and there is nothing in reception. I'd love these gaps to be filled, but I haven't found any sources on the web, and filling these gaps would mean going through old print copies of Soap Opera Digest, which I have no access to. I've been thinking of seeking help from a Days fan who has classic copies of SOD, but haven't gotten around to it. I need to focus my time and energies on other things at the moment, so my time for progressing a fix to these gaps is minimal. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It also would make sense to illustrate the article properly first. As Massey played Will for more episodes than anyone else, and was most noted in the role, the infobox should carry a pic with him in the role, and the Wilson pic be presented in the body of the article (the infobox is big enough as it is!). I think the body of the article should also contain pics of Darian Weiss and Chris Gerse in the role, and I think a pic of Dylan Patton in the role would be better than the one we have where he is at the Emmys. It would be fairly easy to come up with screen-caps for the pics, but as to including them in the article and if we need to get permissions, I don't know anything about that. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Credit name Will Roberts in lead or not

livelikemusic could you please link me to the discussion/decision that you refer to in the edit summary where you took (also known as Will Roberts) out of the lead. I am puzzled by the keenness to take this out - which is the credit name for the character for the bulk of its onscreen "life" - simply because many other soap opera article leads are chock full of un-notable names, eg Samantha Gene "Sami" Brady (lead at Sami Brady), Kimberley Harmony Angelica "Kim" Fox-Hubbard (also Fox) (lead at Kim Fox). I'm all for a leaner approach, in that I don't want to see William Robert "Will" Horton again as the lead, as it's clunky and pointless, but why the keenness to remove an important credit-name, whilst other articles leads for fictional characters are packed with useless middle names which have no value at all for fictional characters?

In the case of Will and Lucas - where the previous credit-name was held for *longer* than the current one - there is a genuine case for "formerly known as". And out of respect for the actors who created this character as "Will Roberts" I believe it should be right up there in bold in the lead. That's an argument I will stand by!

Also, women easily get both their maiden and married names in the lead, and even the article name - such as Adrienne Johnson Kiriakis, and everyone is happy, so there should be no problem in case of Will and Lucas to include their important former credit name in the lead.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion is continued in the section below.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Superman as precedent for bold alternative names; more on including Will Roberts in opening sentence

In the text of Superman Clark Kent and Kal-El are put in bold. This is exactly how I had Will Roberts and Will Reed in the body of the text when they were first removed by another editor from the opening sentence. I put them in bold because the character name *is* important. This is especially true of the credit-name of Will Roberts, which was the credit-name for most of the character's "life". That bold was removed by Livelikemusic on December 12, as part of a "clean up". However Superman shows the benefits and value of putting the alternative names in bold. Can you get a better precedent than Superman? I don't think so!  :-)

So, as Livelikemusic has now stripped the longest-standing credit-name from the opening sentence, I'm going to re-bold the alternative names within the text. Please have a thought not to undo this unless you are prepared to go and do the same at Superman as well! Thank you! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've done that, but only in the introduction. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that bolding "Will Roberts" and "Will Reed" is acceptable in the lead per MOS:BOLD because the article is the redirect destination of those valid alternative names, not necessarily because they are "important". The removal from the first sentence was per the Project discussion that decided that characters should not be introduced in the article with a string of full/alternative names. That said, I don't want to reopen a big can of worms, but there is the possibility that in this particular case not including the alternative name right away could confuse/surprise readers if a significant amount know him as Will Roberts.— TAnthony^Talk 16:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I do think there is an article-specific consideration here. The intro includes a brief introduction to the family background of the character, and I think that is right and important, because family background is fundamental to the make-up of this particular character. Here, his father is named Lucas Roberts, and I think that too is correct: it is right that the name here is contemporary to the narrative. However it is somewhat confusing now that the article doesn't begin Will Horton (formerly known as Will Roberts) ..... I don't want to war, but I do think the intro was clearer beginning (formerly known as ...) Aliveness Cascade (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Project-policy should serve the encyclopedia, not the other way round. For this particular article, Will Horton (formerly known as Will Roberts) .... may be the best option, as my previous paragraph explains. Perhaps the project-policy best be considered as a rule-of-thumb, rather than a must-do. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes I think the group settled on that to avoid articles beginning with "Alexis Morell Carrington Colby Dexter Rowan is a fictional character from the 1980s prime time soap opera Dynasty." In cases like this article though, it is not a matter of trying to squeeze in too much detail/trivia, but clarifying for the reader and in some ways satisfying WP:ASTONISH.— TAnthony^Talk 15:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I've now looked at the latest discussion at the Soap Project's Archive 11 and at the Village Pump discussion that discussion links to, and there is NOT a consensus, and NOT a decision to exclude role-names from the lead. What there is a discussion with different points of view, one of which is that significant role-names *should* be included. Likelivemusic's decision to remove it on February 28, with the edit summary reason of "per decision at Soap Project" is invalid, as there is not a decision or consensus. For the reasons described in the paragraphs above, there is very good reason to put Will Roberts in the opener here. It was the role-name from 1997 to 2007. And it is the longest-standing role-name of the character! And as described above it is necessary for comprehensibility and the satisfaction of WP:ASTONISH. For these reasons, and out of respect for the actors who created this role in that name and whose work is associated with that name, I am restoring it. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

... Which I've now undone! I've tried to find a solution which ticks all the boxes, but I can't find one. The Superman option, which I have reverted it to, does at least give an uncomplicated beginning, and that's undoubtedly a plus. If it encourages more people to read past the first line, I'm all for that!  :-) Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Romance

This Reception sub-section was called Gay Romance, because it is reception to Will's gay romance with Sonny, and *not* reception to Will's romances with Mia or Gabi.

I think the title best match its contents, so I propose changing it back to Gay romance, or to make it Will and Sonny romance, or Romance with Sonny. I put this out there to see what people prefer.

The character is bigger than its gay era. The article needs to reflect that. (Although "in-universe" he was retconned as always gay, in reality the character wasn't gay until 2011)

I'm happy with Gay Romance. They made him gay so they could do gay stuff with him, LOL, I don't see a problem with it - but what do you prefer? Aliveness Cascade (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I see your point and don't object to "Gay romance" in that context, and I'm guessing the sources refer to it that way. But the fact that there is no real critical reaction to any of the character's heterosexual romances sort of makes them not notable outside of plot summary. Essentially, his only notable relationship is a gay one. I don't think I would consider the conception of his daughter with Gabi notable as a romance, just a notable plot point. The character may be bigger than the gay era but his love life only really exists in the gay era. It feels a little like if we have to call the section "gay", we are saying it's different than romance in other articles. But maybe I'm the only one that feels that way?— TAnthony^Talk 16:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

There was definitely romance with Mia and Gabi. (Also, the one-night stand with Gabi happened because there had been romance between them in the past). Notable or not (and there is probably stuff in print copies of SOD that we can't find online - and there are certainly video interviews online with Dylan and Taylor, and Chandler and Camilla), the section should reflect its contents - and just "Romance" makes it look like the only romance that Will had. Also the reception sections are chronological, and that section was never meant to be "All Romances". I like "Gay Romance" because its short and sweet. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've put it to "Will and Sonny's romance" Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Return

Congratulations to Livelikemusic for being first to the punch with a reference! (I hadn't seen it when I later added it to the lead because livelikemusic didn't do an edit summary, and had added it down the page:-) )Aliveness Cascade (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(2017-)

In just a couple of days well-meaning folks have been adding (2017-) frequently whilst sticklers-for-policy have been reversing it. I can see those going on all the way to September! Whatever the policy is, I humbly suggest it's pointless to have this back-and-forth, and it is much better that the article isn't being constantly reverted for the next 4-5 months. So I humbly suggest folks who want to revert this let this one go if it happens again. Chandler is already filming, the strike is off, so Will's return is happening, and the fine points of policy are just not important here. :-) Aliveness Cascade (talk) 08:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Redirects

Will Roberts (fiction) and Will Roberts (Days of Our Lives) both re-direct here. This seems to be an artifact of the history of the article - beginning as a "Will Roberts" article, then being moved to a "Children of Days" list article, and then becoming its own article again, being moved here to Will Horton.

I was wondering whether these two re-directs would be best consolidated into the latter? Can you advise @TAnthony:? Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure what you're asking? I did just replace most uses of Will Roberts (fiction) with a direct link, and Will Roberts (Days of Our Lives) seems completely unused.— TAnthony^Talk 18:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Will Roberts (fiction) caught my attention because it seemed anomalous. Where other Days' character-articles are disambiguated they are disambiguated with (Days of Our Lives). Wouldn't it be better just to have Will Roberts (Days of Our Lives)? I guess it's trivial, but it struck me as odd. Having a look at the history, Will Roberts (fiction) is the almost-original name of the article. Since then it would seem the (Days of Our Lives) form has taken root as the norm.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you concerned with what comes up in the search bar when readers start typing in "Will Roberts"? Existing redirects are rarely deleted if they represent valid search options, including misspellings. There could also be Will Roberts (character), Will Roberts (Days of our Lives), Will Roberts (DAYS), or Woll Riberts, and it wouldn't matter, redirects are just navigation tools.— TAnthony^Talk 19:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize you'd edited the links! I started thinking about this without knowing you'd done that. I didn't know you had just done that when I opened this section! LOL! The thing is, I was thinking of putting in Will Roberts (Days of Our Lives) in place of Will Roberts (fiction) links, but unbeknownst to me you've already replaced them with, as you say above, Will Horton. That's where I was coming from, but you've already taken care of it with direct links, just before I raised the matter! It looks like we were simultaneously thinking about the Roberts redirects, no doubt because of the discussion at Lucas Roberts. :-) Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I was also looking at old versions of this page out of interest (and to see whether there was anything valuable that had been lost along the way). The oldest version of this page seems to be held at Will Roberts (Days of Our Lives) and created on Sept 8, 2006. It is here [7]. It's got an amusing error in it. I love the line: "Will Roberts is the son of former villains Sami Brady and Lucas Roberts". :-) Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that redirects are rarely deleted, because the earliest history of this article has been orphaned at Will Roberts (Days of Our Lives), and I wouldn't want to see it lost! It's both interesting and quite amusing! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Names

Jester66 has been removing important alternate role names from leads. Jester66 has just done this here and at Lucas Horton. In both cases I have restored them. This has been well-discussed already. It is *not* policy to remove alternate names from leads. There is *no* consensus for it, rather it is an idée fixe of certain editors. Discussion about all this is up-page. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Images for each actor

Ideally we want to get images for each actor in the role. I know nothing about images on wikipedia - but was wondering if I uploaded screencaps, whether they would stay, or would NBC need to give permission. (If they do, hopefully they would be favorable now they're reviving the character). I was hoping you could advise @TAnthony:, as I read you're well-versed in images. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

We don't need explicit permission if we are using the images under fair use criteria, and I'd be happy to make any images you upload compliant with the policy. However, we already have Commons images of Massey and Patton in the article, and since the character does not look significantly different than the actor themselves, non-free images of those two performers will eventually be challenged as we have free equivalents. I would argue for using the Commons image of Massey as the main photo though, since he is probably the most notable performer in the role.— TAnthony^Talk 18:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and help. Yes, Massey should go in the infobox now, but ideally it would be best to have in-the-role images of all of them, and it would be disappointing if this was not allowed.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Guy has both an as-Will pic and a himself pic. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If any one actor should be in the infobox, it should be Massey. He should really have been restored to the infobox after the character had been dead for a while, back *before* his return was announced, because Massey is the actor most noted in the role *and* has done the most episodes as Will. Now that Massey is returning, there's *more* reason. Certainly it would be best to have an in-role pic (and I will look at that) but the actor pic is fine for now. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 06:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Acmass's arrangement of pics in the article was good (putting Wilson's in place in the story, and adding the Will and Sonny pic), so I have restored it. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, per WP:SOAPS, we have to follow non-free content criteria policies, and since free images of Massey exist, he can be in the body of the article without being in the infobox. Not every portrayal needs to be represented in the i-box, either. Massey should not be re-added to the i-box until he begins re-appearing; this would be different, however, should the serial be cancelled. Then, the most-recognized portrayer of the role would take the first-claimed spot within the i-box. Once Massey returns, we can add a screen-capture of his portrayal of Will, in 2017, and Wilson's free image can be placed into the article, etc. livelikemusic talk! 22:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOAPS does *not* say any of that. Rather it says, and I quote, "One image per performer to identify the character in the Soap character infobox", and "Subsequent images as necessary, to illustrate only notable elements discussed in the article, such as characters/relationships, storylines, or real-world coverage on magazine or book covers". So it *is* totally acceptable to have Massey in the infobox right now, and it would have been totally acceptable to have Massey in the infobox after the character had been dead for some time - and it *is* appropriate for Massey to be in the infobox for all the aforementioned reasons, namely of being the most notable in the role, and having the most number of episodes as Will. (BTW, the in-article pic of Massey illustrates his support of LGBT people, which reflects a point in the article, and is, at the very least, an argument for its continued inclusion after an appropriate headshot of Massey is restored to the infobox). I can't see any justification here for likelivemusic reverting the nice picture arrangement done by Acmass, with Guy Wilson's pic put in the appropriate place in the story, and Will and Sonny pic at the Will and Sonny romance section. It seems to me that some helpful work to illustrate the article better has been undone for no good reason. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that - if rules permit - it is best for the article/readers to have an in-character pic for each actor who has played the character. I see many articles which do do this, no matter that these pics are naturally copyright of their shows or network! And I wonder why it is being prevented here. Why here? Michelle Fowler, Martin Fowler (EastEnders), Ben Mitchell (EastEnders), Sam Mitchell (EastEnders), Billie Reed, Austin Reed (Days of Our Lives), Kate Roberts (Days of Our Lives), Chad DiMera, Jean Grey in other media, Will Horton and Sonny Kiriakis are all examples of articles on characters played by multiple actors which *do* currently include a copyrighted in-character image of each actor, and sometimes more than one! livelikemusic repeatedly declares there are certain rules concerning images - including one that we can't do this - but when I look myself at the wikipedia guidance I find no basis for these self-declared "rules", and yet he continues to insist on them and my discussion contribution in the above paragraph which points out that the guidance actually says "one image per performer to identify the character "(my emphasis), and "subsequent images as necessary, to illustrate only notable elements discussed in the article" are point-blank ignored by him, which is making a joke of the discussion page! And for goodness sake, Will Horton and Sonny Kiriakis is allowed an in-character-as-Will pic for both Chandler and Guy, but this article on Will himself isn't? Come on! If no one can provide links to wikipedia policy stating livelikemusic declared "rules", then I say those "rules" don't exist! Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright law surely has no opinion as to whether an image appears in an infobox or in the body of the article. I do like the in-infobox arrangement at Billie Reed, but is's not necessarily the best option for here. This is a much larger article, and I think it looked great with the in-character pic of Guy as Will next to his storyline. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

When I put Massey-as-Will in the infobox I moved the Guy-as-Will pic to the storyline section. This was then removed by livelikemusic, and replaced with the Guy-as-himself pic, a change I see no need for, considering that many articles have in-character pics for each actor (see above). Now unused, someone put a delete-request on the Guy as Will pic, and it has sadly been deleted. It was a great pic! The article is better with in-character pics, especially in the storyline and infobox, and I have now put the existing Guy's Will and Sonny pic in its place.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Who had the Guy Wilson as Will picture deleted? We need to at least wait till September 15 until putting Massey's picture up. Jester66 (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A new approach

For this character - with so many players - a combined approach may work best. For the most prominent actors in the role, let's think about putting in-character pics in the infobox, as done well at Billie Reed. For this we will need new images which, like at Billie Reed are landscape-shaped. We can put Chandler, Guy, Dylan (and maybe Chris unless it looks too much) in the infobox just as at Billie Reed (where three images is carried off successfully). For the other actors - Darian and the Carpenter twins (and maybe Chris) we can add in-character pics to the body of the article (as in Jean Grey in other media), with possible positions being Casting, Character, and Storyline. It will take a while to arrange appropriate screencaps, and the currently uploaded Chandler-as-Will pic can be used in the meantime once he's back on screen. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Multiple Issues

It is disappointing to have "multiple issues" templates slapped onto the article by Jester66 on the eve of day when we can expect maximum interest in the article.

This will be the third time Jester66 has done this without initiating or engaging in discussion about this issues he sees in the article. This is not constructive. Without going back to check, if I remember correctly the first time he added them, he didn't even bother with an edit-reason. The second time the reasons given were unhelpfully vague. He was asked to elucidate his concerns in talk. He didn't do this. This time the reason was some "ownership of the article" nonsense. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Original Research

Are there any concerns beyond the Boof and Logan tweets? The includability of these tweets is arguable in my view, as they come from experts (and I think that this content is valuable and valued). And they already tagged as tweets so that the reader can weigh their value themselves, so it seems unnecessary to me to add a global tag which besmirches the whole article. That is of course just my view. All the other tweets are most certainly acceptable as they were re-published in third party sources. Are they any other issues that concern you Jester66?Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I reckon both the Boof and Logan twitter-quotes are acceptable. From WP:SELFPUBLISH: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Certainly this covers the Logan tweet, and I'd argue it covers the Boof tweet as well. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Non-neutral point of view

I do not know why Jester66 thinks this article has a non-neutral point-of-view, and it is unproductive to keep adding this tag without explaining it! We're not psychic! If you know of sources which give alternative points of views, which you think are appropriate to include, why do you not just add them? Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Reason why I posted that Template is because the way you write certain sentences in the article leans a certain way and not from a neutral point of view and it clearly shows fan bias. Also some of your links are also from a fan POV and not from licensed media articles. Furthermore, ever since you started editing this article it's obvious that you feel like you have ownership over this particular page. Like reverting edits you don't like saying that it "undermines and confuses readers" and arguing over the images as well. Jester66 (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's great that you are now talking about your concerns with the article! Let's talk about the article! Which sentences? (I think it would be best to talk about your claims about my editing in another section. Let's put the article first!) Which sentences in the article "lean a certain way"? And what links are "from a fan POV"? (The Boof and Logan tweets are already in discussion. What else? I get the sense there is more!)Aliveness Cascade (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

As Jester66 has not backed up his claims with any specifics, I think the templates can be discarded. It really is just silly for Jester66 to repeatedly add templates like these to an article, and then repeatedly fail to specify any issues that justify the templates. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Reception coverage of backlash *is* valid and important

Here are examples of LGBT character articles which cover fan reaction to the character's death:

• Ianto Jones
• Lexa (The 100)
• Tara Maclay

Notice that the first gives far greater coverage to fan reaction than here at Will Horton, and is categorized as a "good article". The second also gives greater coverage of the controversy around the character's death than here. In all cases, here included, fan reaction is included because it is talked about by professional commentators in notable sources. It is an entirely appropriate area of reception for wikipedia articles to cover. In fact, it would be wrong not to include it here, as professional commentators remark on its significance. To wit:

"Fans were outraged in a way rarely seen before in Days history, not comprehending the purpose of killing a legacy character ... who we watched grow from birth in real time onscreen" (Soap Hub's Hope Campbell)

"To kill the legacy character of Will Horton by having him brutally murdered ... sent a message to the LGBT community, and the viewers, that caused a major negative backlash." (Veteran soap journalist Michael Fairman)"

What's more, the fan backlash is very much part of the real-world story of the character of Will Horton. Ron Carlivati, the new headwriter who is bringing Will back credits the unpopularity of the killing-off of Will as the reason for bringing him back: "it seemed like the death of Will Horton was not a popular decision and was viewed as a mistake. I wanted to take a look at that and see if there was a way to repair some of that damage.” It is therefore essential to include coverage of the fan backlash in the article.

I disagree that the article is written from a fan's point-of-view. I disagree that the article is not written from a neutral point-of-view. Quotes from fans in the article come from edited professional publications (acceptable sources) which have chosen to feature them. It is therefore entirely acceptable and proper to include them in the article. They are not original research. Plus they are also a small part of the reception coverage here. The bulk of commentary in the article is the opinion of professional critics. And as far as I can see the opinion of critics was overwhelmingly negative towards the killing-off of Will. (I think some praised Robert Scott Wilson's performance as the killer Ben Weston, but that is not relevant here as this is an article about Will).

The example articles above (Ianto Jones, Lexa, Buffy's Tara) include views that challenge the negative responses to the killing of the character. This article doesn't because critics were overwhelmingly against the killing of Will! This distinguishes Will from these other characters. The solid negativity towards killing-off Will seems to be for three reasons: (1) Will was a twenty-year old soap-opera legacy character, who was "born on the show" and "grown up on the show", and his importance to the show was widely appreciated; and (2) he had cultural significance due to the highly-praised coming-out story, and being part of the first male-male marriage in US daytime drama history, and (3) the general impact of the Will and Sonny relationship:

"The storyline began to play out in 2012, when few states had marriage equality. By the time the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that same-sex marriage was a right in all 50 states on June 26, 2015, Will and Sonny were already married. DOOL had shown fans how important all types of love stories were and how they deserved representation on daytime TV ...

"DOOL threw away one of their most impactful relationships in soap history for a salacious serial killer storyline." (Kristyn Burtt of She Knows)

"Watching Will grow in real time and knowing he was a legacy character (a Horton and a Brady) are exactly what made his death so horrifying for longtime fans – and so unacceptable.That one story arc ushered in a downward spiral for the soap just before its 50th anniversary that never stopped–until now. Welcome back, Will, and welcome back, Sami." (Hope Cambell on Soap Hub)

This article also lacks feedback/reply from the show's producers that the other articles include. That's only because Days didn't give any response to the critisicm:

When Matt Roush in his TV Insider column answered this question, "Does anyone in the TV industry know or care that Days of Our Lives exterminated their iconic gay legacy character and pretty much abolished all things gay on the show, just in time to celebrate 50 years on the air?", he replied: "To address this provocative issue, which I am assured has caused some stir within the industry, I reached out to our resident expert in all things daytime, the great Michael Logan. He informs me that Days' executive producer and head writer have so far declined to comment on Will's death, or, quoting Logan, "why [they] would agree to terminate such an important and groundbreaking character." If someone is aware of the show's producers making comment about the backlash, I'd like to read it (and see it included in the article)!

In short, reception coverage actually reflects the balance of the sources, and it *is* entirely appropriate, indeed necessary, to cover the backlash.Aliveness Cascade (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Married or not? Relevant article about real-world reappearances after being declared dead

"Most states have statutes on the book that consider the marriage ended once the person is declared dead, whether or not that person turns up alive. Their reappearance cannot disrupt any new marriages that might have taken place."

Brenda Heist: How to come back from the dead

Aliveness Cascade (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, so much for the real world! Days seems to be treating Will and Sonny as still married, as in the episode of Friday December 8, Victor Kiriakis tells Sonny he should divorce Will. Aliveness Cascade (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)