Talk:List of The Young and the Restless characters introduced in the 2010s

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles

Television

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ricky Williams

Does anybody else here feel that the cause field in the Ricky Williams article is too long? Arjoccolenty (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's fine. Unless it's reduced to simply "Fell out window" or "Shot by Paul Williams". You're reading too much into this. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 23:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions at Template:Infobox soap character state that the cause parameter should be the "Reason the character last left the series; for deceased characters, use 'death cause' parameter for their means of death, and this parameter for any post-death appearances as a ghost, hallucination, etc." You could condense the death cause by changing:

|cause=Died from falling through an upper-story window to the ground after being shot in the arm by his father Paul Williams

to

|death cause=Fell through a window after being shot by his father Paul Williams

Anyone wanting further details could read the last paragraph of the section. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what should happen. However, both cause and death cause show up. So the cause should be fell through window, and then death cause shot/fell through window. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 23:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that. Arjoccolenty (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think right now until they find out what really killed him is to put is TBA because we don't know if the shot really killed him or the fall killed him. --M42380 (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but falling out of an upper story window like he did, he likely "dead". However, per WP:FICTION, characters don't die. Sheila Carter is more than enough proof of that. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 23:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Cause/reason" and "Cause of death" both show up only if you choose to populate both the |cause= and |death= parameters. The instructions at Template:Infobox soap character state "All parameters are optional, and will not display if empty." Also, note that my suggestion doesn't state whether the fall or the gunshot killed him. GoingBatty (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, he is not "likely" dead. He IS dead. Per Michael Baldwin 18 minutes into the episode, "Ricky Williams is dead." And most of the episode was a homicide investigation. And they showed the area on the ground where he fell. And a shot to the upper arm obviously did not kill him; the fall to the ground did. Let's stop overanalyzing this. Second, no other character infobox uses a “Cause of death” field; the death for all other characters is explained in their "Cause/reason” field for their last appearance. Wikipedia guidelines insist on consistency in such matters. And for the record, his cause/reason for last appearance was not that he "fell through a window." It was that he died. 76.189.126.170 (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 00:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Musicfreak7676, you are misunderstanding the fields. You said, "So the cause should be fell through window, and then death cause shot/fell through window." The cause/reason field is the cause/reason of it being the character's last episode. Look at all the other characters on in the article who died. The cause/reason is about their death. And none of the others who died have a "Cause of death" field being used. So we can't just single out this one character and use the "Cause of death" field just for him. We must be consistent and do it the way it's doen for every other character. 00:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because another character does not show it doesn't mean it cannot be used. That excuse is not valid per Wikipedia. That's like saying "X" character is notable because "Y" character is. Second of all, per WP:FICTION characters do not officially die, that violates fiction. And we last saw Ricky all out of a window. Unless you saw another episode we did not. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 00:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And no, I'm not misunderstanding. I've been editing Wikipedia long enough to understand the fields, thank you very much. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 00:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe we should start using both fields, because more often then not, a character will come back as a hallucination or a ghost, and that will be their last appearance. Arjoccolenty (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Musicfreak7676, instead of focusing on what YOU want to do with this one character, look at how ALL the other characters who died are handled. There's a reason they're all done the same way. AS I've clearly explained several times, the Michael Baldwin character announced Ricky Williams' death 18 minutes into the episode. And there was a homicide investigation for most of the episode. In any case, no other character that's died has a "Cause of death" field being used. So Ricky Williams absolutely must match the format of all the others. We cannot have ONE character whose infobox is done differently than all the others just because that's the way YOU want it. It violates Wikipedia's consistency guidelines. Sorry. 00:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 76.189.126.170 (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're new to this editing thing on Wikipedia, trust me, this isn't about what I want, it's about the consensus. There's no STRICT rule saying "cause of death" cannot be used, especially where up above the previous user said to use CoD. We can have what we should have. So know your stuff before you come at me, K? Consensus was reached to use CoD. Read up on your stuff. And as I've stated per WP:FICTION characters do not die. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 01:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're speaking without knowledge. I am NOT new to editing Wikipedia. I've been doing it for years. So putting your personal insult aside, look at the infoboxes of Sara Smythe, Caleb Atkinson and George Summers. Do we use a "Cause of death" field for them? No. We explain the death in the "Cause/reason" field for their last appearance. 76.189.126.170 (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I never insulted you at all. And just because those three don't use it doesn't mean one cannot. And if you have been editing for years, why not use your username instead of an IP? _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 01:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's none of your damn business why I don't use a username. If I choose to use my IP, that's my choice. Second, if a soap opera says a character died, then they died. And if they come back to life in some form, then we edit to reflect that. We simply add content as it is presented. Third, you put an edit comment that said, "Show me where it isn't used," referring to the "Cause of death" field. I already told you. More than once. (Sara Smythe, Caleb Atkinson and George Summers are examples.) But you are so intent on simply doing things your way, instead of following Wikipedia's consistency guidelines and doing it the way it's done for the other "dead" characters, that you just discard the evidence. Someone who is loyal to Wikipedia's standards would say, "Hey, you're right, we don't do it that way anywhere else. I didn't notice that." Focus on facts. And adhere to the consistency guidelines. 76.189.126.170 (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Um, I never insulted you at all." Really? How about when you said, "You're new to this editing thing on Wikipedia, trust me." That is very condescending and, therefore, insulting. As if you are superior to me in terms of editing. 76.189.126.170 (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I don't appreciate you cussing at me when I asked a genuine question. And I am actually removing myself from this discussion now because it's become to volatile and attacking. I'm not intending to be condescending, so if you took it as much, I apologize, nowhere near my intentions. And I do not believe I am inferior of anyone who edits here. I'm not intent on doing things "my way" as you accuse me of doing such. So I am therefore removing myself from this conversation and editing of this page. I will leave it to my friends who created the pages. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 01:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be some different views on how to use this template, I've requested additional assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas. GoingBatty (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer a few things I have seen mentioned. The "cause" field in this infobox is always addressed in an in-universe manner. It houses a reason for the character leaving - either they died or left town. I'm no fan of it because of this - it should focus more on the real world aspect. The actual cause is the actor quiting the series or the production chosing to write them out. While fictional characters never cease to exist after they have been created and included - they can die within the series. I also think the cause field is mistreated and in this particular case, it shows how. Instead of conforming to the standard of an infobox, a brief run down of 'important' information, it is presented with a sentence to explain the cause. Decide whether the shot or the impact of the fall left this character dead and simply state one or the other. If it is notable, the reader can read the full explanation in the section itself.Rain the 1 02:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rain, thanks for your great clarification on some of these issues, which support what I have been saying all along regarding the use of the last appearance "Cause/reason" field in the infobox, and the fact that fictional characters CAN indeed die within a series (even though, of course, they never cease to exist), contrary to Musicfreak7676's repeated insistence that fictional characters don't die. With regard to the death cause for this character, the episode clearly indicated, as explained in the final paragraph of the Ricky Williams section, that he died from the impact of the long fall from an upper-story window and not from being shot in the arm only seconds earlier. One thing you did not specifically address is the fact that the infoboxes of the three other "dead" characters in the article (Sara Smythe, Caleb Atkinson and George Summers) do not use the "Cause of death" field, yet Musicfreak7676 inexplicably insists that it would be acceptable to use it for the Ricky Williams character only. I have tried to explain to him, unsuccessfully, that it is important to adhere to Wikipedia's consistency guidelines with regard, in this case, to infobox format. Thanks again for your input. 76.189.126.170 (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If CoD is never used, then why do we have it as a field? Arjoccolenty (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This "consistency" talk is not very apt though. We decide on a case by case basis unless this discussion is at WP:SOAPS with the aim of making a project wide change. This discussion relates to Y&R characters who appeared in 2010s only.Rain the 1 20:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition - Why are characters who appeared before "2010s" listed in this article. Such a strange thing to do, they should be in seperate yearly lists with the correct title. You cannot just slap bang characters in where it suits. Something needs to be done here.Rain the 1 20:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's odd. Apparently, a group of users created character articles for each decade. So you'll find articles for this soap's characters for the 2000s, 1990s, etc. 76.189.126.170 (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created all the decade pages except for the 1980s which was SoapJar21, though I set most of it up. The reason for some older characters appearing on the 2010s page is because they first appeared prior to then but significantly returned in the 2010s, and mostly because their storyline prior to then was brief. I don't feel the need to suddenly change the causes/reasons of characters, Ricky Williams is dead per millions of sources. I don't want to explain all of our tactics since February and March, if you want to join us in the Y&R character page project we adhere special tactics, nor do I have the time to be part of this consensus right now. Creativity97 (Talk) 02:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why anyone will be adhering to a consensus between two editors - who created the lists. If that is not the case, then I am sorry to assume but I was left with no other option - as you openly state you are to busy to explain your "special tactics".. At the end of the day anyone is within their rights to envoke the wider consensus at WP:SOAPS. That would appear to be that characters go within the yearly list suggested in the title. Just because you understand - does not mean that the general reader shall. Being familiar with US soap aticles - I know that "significantly returned" equates to recentism, POV issues and many other fan factors. Another issue is the unwillingness to find older sources for these articles and lists and relying on recent sources - which makes these list entries appear more notable within the "2010s" era of the show. Either discuss changing the title - or move the characters that actually appeared some ten years prior to the appropriate list. I see your message as more of an order, a reminder that you created the article and a closing statement which disregards the entire discussion.Rain the 1 03:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to come across like that, but it makes sense to put older characters with a past brief storyline that returned say in the 2010s, like Harmony Hamilton, her 2005-06 storyline was very brief and she returned five years later in October 2011, and now has a bigger character and storyline. I don't feel the need to change the name, there was no issue with this for the past three/four months and I don't thik there has to be now, do you see my reasoning? I also understand that the general reader may not understand at first, but if he/she reads the opening title properly, they should get it. Creativity97 (Talk) 14:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Creativity's efforts, but I have to totally agree with Rain. Rain's comment, "I know that 'significantly returned' equates to recentism, POV issues and many other fan factors" seems to be right on the money. Something needs to be done with these characters-by-the-decade articles. It's illogical and flawed. 76.189.105.63 (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I just ask why all of a sudden you guys are faining interest in these articles? I know Rain has always worked with Soaps but this is kind of sudden to as why you are thinking of changing things. And we need more opinions on this I think. Creativity97 (Talk) 19:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creativity97 - you should be keeping the discussion on the article and not editors. Anyone is welcome to take an interest at any point.Rain the 1 11:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about this article

Hey all. While these decade character lists have proved to be organized and easy, the size and possible future size of this article in particular is a huge concern. Using this article for the next 7+ years doesn't seem even possible. Previously I had been developing articles for every year back to 2000 and use decade pages for 70s, 80s and 90s. All of those decade pages (70s, 80s, 90s) are great and don't need changing. However, this is getting a little too long. I am proposing we split this article into the following articles —

List of The Young and the Restless characters (2010)

List of The Young and the Restless characters (2011)

List of The Young and the Restless characters (2012)

List of The Young and the Restless characters (2013) (new arrivals will probably occur but this article would only be created obviously once it is needed).

Please share your thoughts! IMO, all of these articles should be 100–110 bytes to keep them manageable. see here for an example. Let's do something before the size of this page becomes too much to handle! Ar re 11:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's a good idea. You have a point saying that for the next seven years it will become extremely long. Creativity97 16:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Days of Our Lives characters (1960s) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Days of Our Lives characters (1960s) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]