Talk:Children of The Young and the Restless

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


redirect this page to List of Y&R characters —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Summer Newman and Fenmore Baldwin[edit]

We should move these characters to "List of The Young and The Restless Characters (2010s)", as they have been aged, are getting proper story lines, and are no longer Children. The same thing happened with Kyle Jenkins Abbott when he was SORAS'ed as well. I previously tried to move them to the other page quite some time ago, but someone undid it. Could I know why? -- NejiByakugan360 17:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NejiByakugan360 (talkcontribs)

John's name[edit]

Some people are choosing to believe John Abbott is John Abbott IV. However, he cannot. Jack had John Abbott III, and since that was the next name sake and he died, it'd go back to John Jr. or John II. Plus, Billy is not the namesake of John, Jack is. So Billy has no holding over the title. Please discuss your opinions here. livelikemusic my talk page! 23:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

1. This is long-standing content. 2. His name is John Abbott IV. That's the way he was introduced on the epsiode by his parents. 3. This is not real-life; it is a soap opera.You are trying to use real-life logic in a make-believe world. 4. Obviously, Johnny's father's name is not John, it's Billy, and it makes no sense but we can not simply ignore the fact that he was introduced as John Abbott IV. Again, this is the crazy, fake world of soap operas. If we removed all content that didn't make sense, the soap opera articles would have very little content. This character's name is John Abbott IV. The words came out of Victoria's mouth. -- (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
1. Don't talk to me as if I'm a child or below you. I don't appreciate it, nor will I tolerate it. Second of all, just because word of mouth doesn't mean it true. I know it's a soap opera, but that doesn't mean real-world context isn't allowed. Just because he's introduced doesn't make it so. And it isn't long-standing, it was simply John Abbott until I left in September, which was standing a lot longer than John IV. I'm not new at this. livelikemusic my talk page! 00:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Please consider this a warning for your threatening language ("I will not tolerate it"). Everything I said relates to the content issue. As far as your reply, you have proven my case. You said, "Just because he's introduced (as John Abbott IV) doesn't make it so". Actually, it's completely the opposite - it absolutely DOES make it it so. The character's mother said to other characters, let me introduce you to "John Abbott IV". Therefore, his name is John Abbott IV. We edit content based on facts, not on what makes sense to you or what you consider to be "legal". Again, this is a soap opera, which is saturated with non-sensical situations that in real-life make no sense at all. His name is illogical to me, too, but that's irrelevant. That's his name. And I didn't say "word of mouth"; I said "The words came out of Victoria's mouth". -- (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Ummm... that was not threatening language. I was merely pointing out that I wasn't willing to be continued to talk to in such a condescending tone. And I never said, agreed nor proved any point to say she said it, as I never recall Victoria saying of mouth "John Abbott IV". Nothing even close. And whether it's Victoria or Billy, it's word of mouth. livelikemusic my talk page! 00:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Like LLM said, they have never acknowledged him as John Abbott IV. That is not his name. He is just the namesake of his deceased grandfather. Arre 01:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it was said. On the April 11, 2012, episode. Victoria: "I'd like to introduce you to our son, John Abbott the fourth." -- (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I will try and re-watch the episode and see what was said. Still, it's not been long-standing on Wikipedia. Nor do I believe it stands, nor do I believe that Arre disagrees. livelikemusic my talk page! 04:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, well he is the fourth John Abbott, but doesn't mean he is legally John Abbott IV. It wouldn't make sense because he is Billy's son, not Jack's grandson.. Caroline Spencer is the namesake of her aunt, doesn't mean she is Caroline Spencer, Jr. Arre 04:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Your points have already been clearly addressed. Was "Caroline Spencer, Jr." presented on the show as the name? No. So it's a completely irrelevant and non-sensical comparison. The only thing that matters with regard to Johnny is that his parents introduced him as "John Abbott IV"; this signifies that the writers of the show named him that, which is why they put it in the script. So his name is John Abbott IV. Period. Of course it doesn't make sense. Most of the things that happen in soap operas do not make sense! It's a fantasy world. One other point to livelikemusic (formerly MusicFreak7676), your notification to Arre 9 about this discussion verges on violating canvassing and forum shopping guidelines.[1] Arre 9 is the only editor you notified and it is clear by the following comment on their user page that you two work closely together on soap opera articles: “I always compare notes and work with Creativity97 (C97) and MusicFreak7676 (MF) when it comes to Soaps!”[2] You cannot solicit participation by one editor that you are known to partner with on an article or category under discussion. And this isn't about agreeing or disagreeing; it's about a factual matter. Many people didn't agree that the Earth was round, but they were wrong. -- (talk) 04:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you present a valid source for this, then we can say his name is John Abbott IV. That's usually the best way to get around these situations. Also, just because they are fantasy worlds, doesn't mean things don't have to make sense. Also, IP Adress, LLM and myself haven't worked together for a while; going on months. They saw a discussion that might interest me, big deal. I encourage people to do that. I'm not inclined to agree with him on everything, and on a matter of occasions we've disagreed. But on this particular discussion, I do agree. So what if she said "John Abbott the fourth"? That legally makes him John Abbott IV? Nope. Either way, his name is John Abbott. You seem to know a lot for an IP address. I'll just say, please present us with a source that confirms this, instead of linking us to my userpage and talk page which I am completely aware of. Regards, Arre 15:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Arre, you should be very careful about your insulting implications about IP editors or you may find yourself at AN. And I suggest you educate yourself on WP:HUMAN and WP:URIP2, which explains that "You are an IP too. See here if you don't think so." In fact, you are far more anonymous than me because my IP address is visible, while you are hiding behind a fake account name. In terms of your working relationship with livelikemusic on soap opera articles, that statement on your user page says it all (“I always compare notes and work with Creativity97 (C97) and MusicFreak7676 (MF) when it comes to Soaps!”). And you are missing the point about the impropriety of livelikemusic contacting you; you were the only editor he contacted, so he chose only someone with whom he has worked closely instead of writing to multiple, neutral, uninvolved editors. This type of solicitation is improper. You asked, "So what if she said 'John Abbott the fourth'?" So what?!? If you honestly don't understand why that not only matters, but in fact is all that matters to settle this issue, then you should not be editing soap opera articles. As has been clearly explained multiple times, "legally" does not apply to the fantasy world of television, especially soap operas. Or any fictional production. We do not edit fiction based on real-world legalities; we do so based on the presented facts within the scripts of the productions. In this case, the script included Victoria introducing her child as John Abbott IV. Therefore, that is the source and that is the character's name. We do not question the common sense of fictional scripts, we simply present the facts as they are presented witin those scripts. -- (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I contacted Arre because she has been a long-time fellow editor and one of the only ones I truly keep in constant contact with. I could have contacted others, but she's the only other Y&R editor I discuss with. And if you do believe it was said in a script, it was merely said ONCE. I have not heard "John Abbott, IV" in any of the recent episodes since his birth. The information of IV was merely added within the last month, so it is not long-standing information. I will be contacting other edits, etc. to come into such discussion. Also, in publications such of Soap Opera Digest, they never referred to him as IV. They simply stated namesake, no IV. Victoria actually stated "in honor of your father". Honor is not IV. livelikemusic my talk page! 16:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Choosing to ignore the scripted facts and making non-sensical comments such as "Honor is not IV" will not help your case. The character was introduced as John Abbott IV. Period. It doesn't matter whether it was said once, 100 times or 1000 times. -- (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Aha, but it does matter! Children are introduced as one thing all the time, especially during babyswitches, and their names change. You're not seeming to grasp what else I said: publications are claiming he is NOT "IV". livelikemusic my talk page! 17:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
"Publications"... right. We are not talking about baby switches; we are talking about the character's parents introducing him as John Abbott IV upon his birth i.e. the scriptwriters stating the character's name. This fact overrides all else because it's directly sourced to the creators of the content in question. -- (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Btw livelikemusic, you claimed two times in this thread that the "IV" was not added until September ("it was simply John Abbott until I left in September" and "The information of IV was merely added within the last month"). However, the edit history of this article shows that you are wrong. Here's the proof showing it was first added by another editor on April 12, shortly after Johnny was born.[3] -- (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Which was later removed providing discussions and determination that it was not apart of his name. livelikemusic my talk page! 20:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, first you claimed (twice) that the "IV" wasn't added until last month, which was proven to be false. And now you're claiming there were "Discussions and determination". Right. What's most interesting is the fact that even though three different editors have added the "IV" content over the past six months, you are the only editor to revert it. -- (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
cyf. For now, he is just John "Johnny" Abbott. Find a source proving the "IV". Thanks. I never insulted you, you called me Arre...what am I meant to call you? Sorry if you are offended. "Fake account name"? Hmm..okay. Arre is my real name btw. Also, by "so what" I meant it doesn't automatically make him IV. I rarely edit this page and I am basically un-involved with the subject. Maybe LLM's intentions of contact only me were improper, but give it a rest. I'm no longer going to waste my time here. Goodbye. Arre 04:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Per the scripted diaglogue, the character's name is John Abbott IV. Ignoring this determinative fact is disruptive and counterproductive, as is removing your previously displayed claims in this thread which attempted to downplay your close working relationship with livelikemusic. This includes when you were Arre JLover and he was MusicFreak7676, before both of you changed your names 24 hours apart on October 17 and 18. -- (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what does changing our names have to do with anything? I happened to change mine due my return to Wikipedia. It's a pure coincidence. You're reading a bit too far into things to make this a WP:PERSONAL issue, which I do not appreciate at all. livelikemusic my talk page! 20:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not personal; it's about editor propriety. "Pure coincidence". Right. -- (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, you are making this WP:PERSONAL and are being quite insulting. And I really don't appreciate it. It was a coincidence and don't feel I should have to prove anything as such. livelikemusic my talk page! 21:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
As WP:PERSONAL explains, "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack". -- (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how you're telling us anything. It is person, us changing are names maybe shows that I saw LLM change his name and I felt like a change too. So what? Like I said, it would be reassuring to have atleast one online reference which mentions the named character as IV. Arre 00:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Per the scripted dialogue, the character's name is John Abbott IV. Ignoring this determinative fact is disruptive and counterproductive. In case you haven't noticed, the vast majority of this and many other soap opera articles are completely unsourced because soap operas are fictional. The smaller details of episodes are overwhelmingly not found in reliable sources. They typically only provide overall summaries of episodes and storylines, focusing on the primary details and excluding the minutia. This is why inclusion of these types of content for soap opera articles is based on the scripted dialogue. Although sites such as Soap Opera Wiki and others allude to John Abbott IV, the sourcing is unnecessary as the character's mother stated his name when he was introduced. It's interesting that you want to be "reassured" about this one issue, yet have no objections to the vast number of other statements in the article that are completely unsourced. -- (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is what we are trying to change (Have more sources, just because they are fictional they still should have plenty of sources, in case you haven't noticed). Wikia? Are you kidding me? Arre 03:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
"we are trying"... lmao. So how many current unsourced sentences in this article have you objected to? Please provide the diffs for proof. You apparently are unable to grasp the clearly explained fact that most soap opera minutia can never be reliably sourced in the typical manner and therefore we base such content on the scripted dialogue. In this instance, the character's mother clearly stated his name as John Abbott IV. But your intransigence in continually pretending that this determinative fact was not explained to you is evidence of your disruptive participation. The Wikia reference obviously was not presented as a legitimate source per Wikipedia's reliabilty standards, but instead to make the overriding point about minutia sourcing. You apparently didn't understand that either. As well, you asked for an "online reference," not a reliable source. You have also continued to disrespect the multiple editors who have correctly added the "IV" content. Apparently, it is you that is kidding us. Finally, I recall reading your comment a few days ago: "I won't even bother here nm". -- (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


Hello everyone. I believe that this page is unnecessary. Yes, they are children/minors/infants. But they are still to be recognized as a character. There is no reason a child can't be relevant enough to "Warrant" their own article. Summer Newman is a minor and her article is already up. These profiles should be added to the show's decade-character articles: List of The Young and the Restless characters (1980s), and so on. Please share what you think. Thanks. Arre 02:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I was originally going to suggest this when the decade page project finished, but I didn't bother. I've never agreed with "they do not warrant articles because they are minors". They are characters, regardless of their age or relevance. I am 100% for this merge. Creativity97 03:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
exactly. And, I've removed miscarriages/stillborn babies. Because they were never characters. I don't see why we would need to reach any kind of agreement here, so we should just add all of these profiles to the decade pages and redirect this to Y&R. Can you do all of them from the 2000s? I'll do the rest. Arre 04:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you can add the children to the the pages of the decades were they were born. It's a suggestion. Jester66 (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Both this article AND all the decade articles should be removed. They make no sense. I agree with Creativity97... characters are characters, regardless of age! Many child characters are used much more than some adult characters. And many characters span multiple decades. -- (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
How do the decade pages make no sense? Jester66 (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me? ( you are missing the point here. You're comment makes no sense. Creativity97 is the person who developed the decade pages (with myself). We're not talking about them. What are you suggesting? Yes Jester, that's what we want to do (move them to the decade they were born). Arre 08:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, I am not the one missing the point. As I clearly stated, I agree with Creativity that characters are characters, so their age is irrelevant ("I agree with Creativity97... characters are characters, regardless of age!"). In terms of the decades articles... first, those articles are not for "the decade they were born". They are for characters "who significantly impacted storylines that began" during the particular decade. That's what it says. And to determine "who significantly impacted" is completely subjective; there's no definition for that. Editing must be done in a completely OBjective way, where it's black and white, no gray. Just because one editor says an a character "significantly impacted" a soap doesn't mean the next editor will agree. It must be a measurement that either exists or doesn't exist, not one where judgement is involved. Many characters have been on soaps in more than one decade so it makes no sense to list decade. It's very strange and very random to just say hey, let's categorize characters by decade in that way. The intent was good, but it's illogical. Many other editors have made the same comment on soap talk pages. Arre, please behave in a civil manner toward other editors. It is very inappropriate to make condescending comments such as "Excuse me?" Focus on the topic at hand. -- (talk) 10:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are. I'm not sure what you mean by the decade pages should be merged. By the way, I am the one who first introduced the phrase "who significantly impacted storylines" to Y&R articles when I started with the 2011 characters article, so no need to point that point:p No need to successively explain this, man. The decade articles are fine. They keep things organized for people who have been editing these articles for a while. Excuse Me? ~ how is that rude? Honestly, I mean to harm. I never spoke in an abusive context. You need to re-evaluate which links you direct at me before thinking I need to be more civil? I said excuse me, because I didn't understand what you meant by saying the decade pages weren't needed; because they clearly are. I am the one focusing at topic on hand, you're the one who had to bring the decade articles into this. I am always kind to people here. You're not really making a strong point. Anyway, I never meant to offend you. Additionally, a birth can affect storylines. Like Faith Newman; her birth was very significant in the 2000s or maybe even more possibly in the 2010s decade. You know? Thanks, Arre 15:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
My comments about the decades articles were in no way personal. In fact, I said the "intent was good." Saying that "the decade articles are fine" is completely subjective; it is your opinion only. -- (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
That is not just Arre's opinion, I feel that way too. The reason the decade pages were developed was because there was once an extremely over complicated page called The Young and the Restless minor characters. It was very overly detailed and unsourced, so we decided to first develop individual year pages which then became decade pages. They are merely pages of minor characters, and children at a young age fall under this category. I really don't see why you would suggest to get rid of them. Much work was put into them by me and other users and others have begun this format for other soaps. Creativity97 21:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
It would be no surprise to any editor that you agree with Arre and feel that way too; this is because you two have been heavily involved in the development of those pages and, as Arre has admitted on her user page, the two of you work very closely together on soap opera articles. This is not meant as an insult at all. In fact, I highly commend your passion. But an editor praising his/her own creations does not carry much weight on Wikipedia. As I pointed out, saying that "the decade articles are fine" and are "clearly" needed is purely a subjective opinion, not an objective fact. You should let other uninvolved editors give their viewpoints instead of tag-teaming other editors outside of your circle, which is inappropriate. All articles are controlled by the entire community of editors; no articles are owned by one or two editors and therefore significant decisions cannot be made unilaterally. As I said before, I believe the intent of the decades article was very good but that segregating characters by decade is quite random and illogical, as has been pointed out on other soap talk pages. Processes that require subjective analysis such as "who significantly impacted" a soap opera, and when they did it, totally violates the basic tenets of Wikipedia. Ten editors can have 10 different definitions of what "signficantly impacted" means. That's why Wikipedia doesn't allow a procedure like this. Content must be factual, objective and sourced. The line has been crossed any time judgements are involved. I know you have put a lot work into it, and that's great, but the credibility of Wikipedia is absolutely dependent on editing in a proper manner, per guidelines. Whether something is appropriate can never be based on how much time has been put into it; only on whether it is done appropriately. Having said all that, I still totally agree with you that characters are characters, regardless of age. That point has been missed in all of this. Finally, I appreciate you focusing only on article content. -- (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
You're arguments are invalid. Go ahead, remove this. You probably will ;) I try to be nice, but you just won't look at this from our POV, people who contribute positively to these articles. I don't have time anymore to sit here and be talked down to by you, You always seem to disagree with everyone so it's obvious there is a pattern here. Removing comments which were non-abusive nor offensive (I never removed comments of yours like that) is just petty. Arre 01:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia discussions are about sharing different viewpoints. It is not about judging whether what someone says is valid or invalid. If you cannot handle opinions that are different than yours, and will only act in a civil and friendly manner towards those who agree with you, then you should not be involved in this project. In terms of comments in talk page discussions, the guidelines clearly outline what is appropriate and inappropriate. Many comments can be inappropriate without being abusive or offensive, such as those that are off-topic or of a personal nature. I suggest you re-read your last post (at 01:13, 17 November 2012); every sentence you wrote was a personal insult. It is a good example of the type of posting that can get you banned from editing. It is vital to focus on content, not the editors who make the comments. This is one of the guiding principles of Wikipedia. Editors must control their tempers, refrain from uncivil comments, and focus solely on article content. If you continue to post hostile messages, or make uncivil edit comments such as this one, you will find yourself at AN. Please, control your temper. -- (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the Summer Newman article should go back to the Children's page. There has been little need for her own page at all. She should go back. livelikemusic my talk page! 17:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)