Talk:Nancy Hughes

	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.

Soap Operas

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

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Nancy Hughes received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. In addition, they should only briefly summarize the plot; detailed plot descriptions may constitute a derivative work. See Wikipedia's Copyright FAQ.

2007

Is there anything we could put under her current time in 2007? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.220.176 (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan McClosky

I'm pretty sure he didn't die until like 1995.

Juppiter 14:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Mike H (Talking is hot) 23:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Internal links

The links to other characters are full of mistakes. They are being linked to real people with the same name. I'm trying to correct. Dbart 14:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Helenwagner.jpg

Image:Helenwagner.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.soapcentral.com/atwt/whoswho/nancy.php. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"is" Vs "was"

As per Bold, Revert, Discuss, the tense changes have been reverted, so now please discuss before reverting again.

On my talk page (and in an edit summary) you say "Wikipedia's policies on that are very clear and easy to understand" - if you can point me to the policies you refer to, I'll understand them, however, a search has not unearthed any. Could be you know where they are, but I don't. I found a few resources - Historical present, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction, Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Tense - but none of them cover a deceased fictional character.

If you're correct, and there is a manual of style or similar which covers this - fair enough, but I can't find one. So, please - comment. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Can't fine one?" I'm wondering how hard you looked... 1 and 2.

It's also common sense that "was a fictional character" would mean that somehow Nancy Hughes is not a fictional character anymore. Like, somehow she jumped out of the TV screen and became real. I haven't heard about that happening so I'm pretty sure she's still a fictional character. Fictional characters are not real. They are no more lifelike than the toys you played with as a child. They were never alive, so they can't be dead. Please don't start an edit war and don't tell me not to make valid edits. You are more than wrong on this.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how hard you looked at my post as well. You'll see that I already linked to the same two links as you did - Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Tense, and that after reading it thoroughly, concluded that it makes no mention of how to deal with a deceased fictional character.

While you're looking up policies, please look up WP:BRD which requests that while we are discussing something, you leave the original format in place - in this case it would be the one which includes the hidden comment of "was ", whcih was added here back in 2012.

Finally - you should also be aware of Edit warring. I'm not telling you to stop making valid edits, I'm asking that as per wp:burden and wp:brd you explain and justify your edits, because I don't see any policy to back it up. Ironically - you're the one starting an edit war by reverting while discussion is ongoing. You still haven't shown me any policies that support your point of view regarding fictional deceased characters - and your interpretation of "common sense" is not a policy. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't shown me you understand the difference between real and fictional people.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you haven't shown me the policy that supports your stance either. You are also avoiding the thorny issue of editwarring, and a refusal to adhere to BRD - why do you feel that you do not need to follow this - surely if you are eventually proved correct you will get your way? Why do the rules of a collaborative work not apply to you? Remember that edit warring does not care who is "right" or who is "wrong", it cares about the person who is repeatedly making reverts in the face of wp:retain, and discussion - and that's you.

Uhm... No, you're the one retaining.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'd be far more amenable to you and your viewpoint if you hadn't been so antagonistic in your editing style and aggressive summaries. Still, that's a problem for you and your ego to work on, not me~~. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. Simple to understand. Fictional characters don't breathe, only the actors who portray them do. They do not end up "bereft of life" hahaha!Cebr1979 (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. You win. I'm going to back off this discussion, mainly because I'm starting to doubt your competency. That link you've provided is not only exactly the same one that I showed you in the very first post, which you ignored and then posted in your own second post, but it also (as I pointed out in my original post) doesn't cover the specific example that I'm querying - what happens if a fictional character has been shown to die? I mean - are you not even reading your own posts now, as well as only skimming mine? If you're not paying attention to what is being said, there's no point in saying anything more.

You also have no idea of how Wikipedia works - your refusal to follow accepted process of BRD, making claims you cannot back up, your non-understanding of the concept of RETAIN - as in when there is deadlock or disagreement retain the existing version - which would be this one. I suspect this is because you appear to be an SPA, and haven't bothered to learn anything about collaborative working. It certainly seems that way, stemming from the fact that even though I'm starting to see your point, I disagree with it simply because your editing style is so contrary. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha Repetitiveness works! When you speak of "competency," I still don't see how you don't get it when, by now, you should've read it three times! You still don't seem to understand the difference between real and fictional people. If a character is shown to die, fine: they were shown to die! Doesn't mean they are no longer fictional characters! They never died in real-life because they were never alive in real-life! So the character died on the show? Big deal! She's still a fictional character. Doesn't change that one bit! What if someone wrote an As the World Turns book about the character set 20 years ago when the character was alive? Would they not be able to because the character died? She "was a fictional character" so now no book? Uhmm... No. HAHA! Take Peggy Carter for example. That character died years ago! In the Marvel Universe, Peggy is still dead! Of old age! So... does that make her not a fictional character anymore? Howcome we're still seeing her in TV shows and movies then? Oh, well. Glad you feel you can comment on the competency of others but, even more glad you're giving up. Less mistakes to correct. Cebr1979 (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If by "repetitiveness" you mean "blatant disregard for process and policy" then yes, you're on to a winner there. And as I said, I am coming round to your way of thinking, but the way you're putting it across is crass, ignorant and smacks of incompetence. While you're on your crusade, you might want to think about how you operate in a collaborative project, and the low opinions you may be generating.

I tell you what though - as a good faith suggestion, seeing as you're the expert and all - why don't you update the relevant section on fictional characters to include the rule that even if they die, the tense is still present? If the change is kept - then there's your proof that you're correct, and it will avoid any further discussion on the topic elsewhere. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only editor I've ever encountered who doesn't understand it. Couldn't you just make a mental note and we'll call it a day?Cebr1979 (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm the only editor who's challenged you on it. There's a difference. Other editors have probably seen your attitude and not thought you worth the bother. Which I suppose has the same effect, albeit with different connotations. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's been discussed before. I said what I meant: you're the only editor I've encountered who doesn't get it.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then that proves my point that if it's been discussed before, the "writing about fictional characters" needs updating. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol - yep, you're the one proving points alright!Cebr1979 (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now I can't decide if you're being facetious, trolling for the last word, nonsensical, or all three. What exactly is that supposed to mean? Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm over talking to you.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]