Talk:Adam Newman

Adam Newman has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 16, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
April 27, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

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

Sources[edit]

I was looking over the article and noticed that most of the sources come from fansites. I'm sure most of the information can be validated by reliable sources and if they can't be then is the information really that notable? Just a quick look at this source [1] makes me doubt that it's very reliable. I think this is a pretty important article given the character's legacy status and the recent controversy around the casting, so I'm just trying to make this the best article it can be. I'm not trying to be nitpicky about sources, even though it might come out that way. Rocksey (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this comment; I also saw some issues with the article and am working on it.— TAnthony^Talk 18:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it alright to use Engen's Myspace message [2] as a source or can we only ones that just repeat what he wrote there? I'm not familiar with the rules on Myspace use. Rocksey (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I removed the MySpace citation because MySpace is generally not allowed as a source, even though in cases like this it seems as reliable as any personal website! — TAnthony^Talk 20:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just looked around and found this info about using MySpace as a source. So I guess we could use this source and a Soaps In Depth on that I have that mentions and quotes a bit of his statement, so now we won't have to rely on soaps.com, soapoperanetwork.com, and soapoperasource.com. Rocksey (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Soaps.com is really user-updated in the way some of the others are and I think their news coverage is reliable and unbiased, so I don't have an issue with it at all, but of course it'd be great to have another source and have Soaps.com as a secondary. The other two you mention are not as troublesome as soapoperacentral or the gossip thing daytimeconfidential, but in this case where we can plainly see that the text of his comments are reproduced verbatim from MySpace, I don't see the harm in having them there so interested people can read the full text. It's a shame that some of these soap sites have been rendered unsuitable for one reason or another, because I find many articles and such to be perfectly accurate and reliable.— TAnthony^Talk 01:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those might be accurate, but they're still fansites. I guess I just don't understand why we would use them when we have more reputable sources that prove the same thing. Rocksey (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, great job adding all those refs and such! I'm thinking this should be nominated as a Good Article soon ... — TAnthony^Talk 16:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ;) That will be great if we can get this to that point.

I'm working on a writing/portrayal section that goes into how Engen portrayed the character's "blindness" and a reception section for response from critics and viewers. Rocksey (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this of any use? — TAnthony^Talk 17:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Wilson (The Young and the Restless) Chris Engen image[edit]

As I stated to Peripitus, I am not seeing how J Milburn's argument beats out the majority of votes and valid reasoning for the image to be kept. In fact, I really am not seeing how his argument, seeing as he was the main one arguing for deletion, was/is stronger than ours (the ones arguing against the deletion). How would having two images of fictional character Adam Wilson in both of his adult physical incarnations, for example, be that different than showing the different physical incarnations for Jabba the Hutt (which are also all fair-use images)? The 30-images scenario does not "fly" with me. As I stated there, I highly doubt that all 30 actors would be notable/significant enough as the character to all be displayed. And even if that were the case, we would not list all 30...but rather go by the most well-known in the role (which would be limited to two at most in regards to fair-use rationale).

I would hope none of you guys feel that this now sets a precedent, because I most certainly will not be following it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I highly doubt that all 30 actors would be notable/significant enough as the character to all be displayed" is exactly my point. How come this one extra one is? Nobody explained that. As for you not following the precedent- we have policies, and if I see images violating policies, I will be deleting them/nominating them for deletion, and if I see users persistently ignoring those policies, I will be warning/blocking them. As will anyone else with any respect for our encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see your point whatsoever. We explained why both incarnations of the character are notable/significant enough to be in the article; you simply disagreed and introduced some ridiculous 30-images scenario. Exactly how is it not just as valid to show these two incarnations of the character as it is to show the different incarnations of Jabba the Hutt? I said I will not be following this "precedent" set by you and the closing administrator. I said nothing of policy, which I am quite familiar with. The fact that you "won" this deletion debate does not make you right. Mistakes like this are made all the time here at Wikipedia, which is why we have WP:Deletion review, and they are often subject to opinion. You can see images which you perceive to be violating policies and delete/attempt to delete them/nominate them for deletion all you want, but it does not make you right. As for your "seeing users persistently ignoring those policies, [and] warning/blocking them," I will not be one of them. Furthermore, I have no tolerance for Wikipedia administrators who think of themselves as god, and issue subtle threats. Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I excluded those voting without saying how the image met the NFCC requirements (eg: "Keep the first two images and the one with Rafe"...as deletion discussions are not votes) there appeared a clear policy-based consensus to delete the second image and an equally clear consensus to keep the first. There were more people than just J Milburn arguing that the second image should be deleted. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not seeing how there was a clear policy-based consensus to delete the second image. Those other people arguing for delete did not go into detail about why they felt the second image should be deleted; one of them even felt that there should typically be no fair-use image of a fictional character. If there was clear consensus to keep the first image, which there was, it should have been clear that there was a clear consensus to keep the second one. These debates should be more about policy than consensus, anyway. I see both images as significantly enhancing the reader's understanding of the article, which is what the image policy is mainly about, and I (as well as others) argued that. J Milburn argued the scenario I mentioned above, a scenario not even likely to happen. Flyer22 (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a breath, and restart re:Images[edit]

Hello all, I think we must cool down! I was also a bit flummoxed by the deletion of the Engen image, but I believe the large amount of images up for discussion had an adverse effect (who decorated the article that way, anyway??). I feel like a decent argument for the second was made, but perhaps a rock-solid rationale was not put forth. It seemed like a no-brainer because all the press about the character has directly involved the actors, but J Milburn may be correct in saying above, "How come this one extra one is? Nobody explained that." Maybe we didn't. J Milburn has not gone madly around IfD-ing soap character images after this deletion, so the accusations above are unfair. Let's discuss the issue here calmly, keeping in mind that J Milburn has a point from a policy perspective. Hopefully he can reiterate some of his arguments from the deletion discussion so we all fully understand his position, and hopefully we can all respond calmly (and not defensively) with our own arguments.— TAnthony^Talk 03:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TAnthony, I did not accuse J Milburn of going around "madly around IfD-ing soap character images after this deletion." I simply stated I hope this is not seen as setting a precedent. And that if it does, I will not be following it because it is more opinionated to me than anything else. As for J Milburn's rationale for deleting the image, I have already made my feelings known about that. Repeating our difference of opinion in this case will not help much, if at all. Flyer22 (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, what you're basically saying is "I don't care about the result of this IfD and I don't care about our image policies. I am not going to debate it, I'm just going to carry on as I was and I expect no one else to target inappropriate images"? J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not state that, and I made clear what I stated. You can continue to with your annoying wordplay all you want; it will not make you right. Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, why are you putting words in people's mouths? Instead of making accusatory statements and incorrectly paraphrasing, why not read what other editors wrote? It seems like that would be the best way to have a real discussion and not have this turn into a fight. Rocksey (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I read, and all I could assume was that I had misunderstood. That's why I asked. J Milburn (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe you missed this part of what she said: "I said I will not be following this "precedent" set by you and the closing administrator. I said nothing of policy, which I am quite familiar with." She never said "I don't care about the result of this IfD and I don't care about our image policies. I am not going to debate it, I'm just going to carry on as I was and I expect no one else to target inappropriate images"? From my interpretation (which could be faulty) I got from it that she doesn't want the result of the deletion to become a precedent. Rocksey (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Rocksey. Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not consider "Repeating our difference of opinion in this case will not help much, if at all." to be a helpful attitude. J Milburn (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I do not consider your subtle threats, and, yes, they were threats, to be a helpful attitude either. You came here with that god complex attitude, when this discussion was not even started to discuss something with you that you have already made up your mind about. It was for me to talk with fellow editors I am familiar with. Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it probably isn't helpful, but neither is misquoting someone else ;) Can the discussion go back to Adam Wilson images now? Rocksey (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. What do you feel needs discussing? J Milburn (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel that an image Chris Engen as Adam should be included in the article. His portrayal of the character is the most notable and received the most praise from critics. A co-star even attributed Engen's looks to the characters popularity. Not having an image of him takes away from the understanding of the article, especially since most of the article is about the casting shake-ups due to Engen's quitting and Muhney taking over. Rocksey (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt that his portrayal is notable- I certainly feel that it should be discussed. If Engen's good looks are so important (as opposed to his portrayal of the character) could the image not be replaced with a free image of Engen himself? J Milburn (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said his looks were more important than his portrayal. His portrayal of the character and the casting controversy surrounding the character/actor are the major parts of the article. If this was about just Chris Engen, then a free image of the actor would be the way to go, but since this is an article about a character he used to portray, in my opinion, it wouldn't work. It would take an original judgment on the part of the editors to determine if the actor as he presents himself and the actor as the show presents him (after hair/make-up/wardrobe/acting in character) are similar enough. Rocksey (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rocksey, of course. My other thoughts on this, as everyone here knows, have already been stated. Flyer22 (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm making is that the way his portrayal of the character looks is not of great importance. Yes, his portrayal of the character is important and worth discussing, but what does an image add? J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite aware of your thoughts about this. And, as I stated before, I disagree with you and have gone over all the reasons why. To keep repeating myself in this case will not help at all. This type of disagreement has existed on Wikipedia for some time, and I have seen that it is often a matter of opinion as people interpret the image policy differently. There is often half arguing for "Keep" based on policy saying that the image must significantly increase readers' understanding of the subject, and half arguing for "Delete" due to not feeling that the image significantly increases readers' understanding of the subject. In these cases, the administrator then closes the debate based on his or her own opinion as well. The only time where I see that it is more about policy than opinion is when most votes are overwhelmingly for "Keep" or when most votes are overwhelmingly for "Delete" based on policy or when most "Keep" votes are simply about liking the image. The fact that the Engen image had as many "Keep" votes as it did with reasonable reasons for "Keep" centered on feeling that it significantly increases readers' understanding of the subject instead of simply "I like it" tells me that this was more of an opinion result. Your opinion differs from mine; that is all. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why this is an opinion issue at all- this is a matter of whether an image significantly increases reader understanding. I keep asking what the image adds, and I still haven't heard an answer. I'll try again- why is it necessary for readers to see what Engen looked like while portraying the character? J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to see why this is an opinion issue? Wow. I just explained above that editors here (including very experienced ones) often disagree about what and what does not significantly increase readers' understanding when it comes to images. Case in point, this discussion. That obviously has to do with opinion. You keep asking me the same question, a question I have already answered in the deletion debate. Your not liking my and others' reasoning does not mean that we have not explained why we feel the image significantly increases readers' understanding of this topic.

I am basically done discussing this with you. If someone else wants to go in circles with you, they can. But I did not start this discussion to rehash this out with you, J Milburn. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did you hope to achieve by starting the discussion, then? J Milburn (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I stated above: "It was for me to talk with fellow editors I am familiar with." It was to see if they feel this sets a precedent, and what to do about other soap opera articles displaying two images for two different physical incarnations of characters. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, sorry, wouldn't want to butt in on your little club. Enjoy. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. Flyer22 (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer and Rocksey, obviously I am as active as you are with soap-related articles and agree that in most cases images of alternate performers are helpful and notable and interesting. However, the image policy is (purposely) vague and multiple images in character articles have always been a grey area. We are just so used to them, they seem like a no-brainer. I have to say that as much as I disagree with J Milburn, he is entirely correct that we have not yet justified the use of the Engen image in any of this discussion. He keeps asking because no one is giving a real answer that satisfies policy. I myself can't think of the words that would do so either. There are probably thousands of biological articles currently without photos because of image policies; can you honestly say that the Albert Finney article is really negatively impacted by the lack of an image? In this case, I want to believe that illustrating the different actors is important, but I'm having trouble finding the words to really defeat the challenge.— TAnthony^Talk 22:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have given J Milburn an answer which I feel justifies the use of the Engen image, as did Epson291; this was done in the deletion debate. I do not feel that it was insufficient in any way. J Milburn keeps asking the same question because he disagrees with the answer. Others can continue to argue with him about it, or even eventually agree with him, but I will not. And it has nothing to do with my being used to there sometimes being two images in the soap opera infobox. Flyer22 (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously any policy can be interpreted in many ways, and we could have had a different outcome in the deletion discussion with a different group of participants. Again, I think the article should have both images. However, after re-reading the deletion discussion, I don't see anything in your (or anyone's) comments that is a slam-dunk defense of having more than one. The policy reads "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." An image of the actor would be great and (I think) would enhance the article, but you are seriously telling me that one is necessary to understand the topic? I openly admit to adding and keeping material in articles that falls in a grey area and I believe may be removed per policy if challenged; sometimes challenges come along, and sometimes content and articles are deleted. Policy is generally on the side of those with a tougher stance on images. I think we're lucky we can use any images in these articles at all, as I've seen it argued many times that since the characters usually don't look much different than the performers do on the street, free images do the same job and should be the only ones allowed. Getting mad at J Milburn is silly, especially since he has been very straightforward through this process. A potential discussion here with only pro-image or soap-centric contributors is pretty much a waste of time. I'm hoping we can reintroduce a photo sometime in the future, but at this point I can't argue with the rationale behind the deletion.— TAnthony^Talk 05:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn's argument is not a slam-dunk defense either. And, yes, I am saying that an image of Engen significantly enhances the reader's understanding of this topic. As for being necessary to understand the topic, which I view as differently than whether or not it significantly enhances the reader's understanding, there are a lot of images I do not view here at Wikipedia as being necessary to understand the topic...but a lot of those get to stay here because they are free. And any editor arguing that "since the characters usually don't look much different than the performers do on the street, free images do the same job and should be the only ones allowed" is seriously flawed in their logic. The actor is not the character; the actor portrays the character, as we know. We certainly do not need an image of Daniel Radcliffe on the street eating a bag of potato chips as the lead image for the Harry Potter character article. There is often no free image here at Wikipedia for most of these soap opera stars, anyway, and often not for prime time stars either. If you now see J Milburn as right on this matter, even though you disagree with him, which you basically stated, then I respect your thoughts; I simply do not agree with them.

Getting "mad" at J Milburn is not silly when he comes in and states, "As for you not following the precedent- we have policies, and if I see images violating policies, I will be deleting them/nominating them for deletion, and if I see users persistently ignoring those policies, I will be warning/blocking them. As will anyone else with any respect for our encyclopedia." And puts words in my mouth. But oh well. I am over it. Flyer22 (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the discussion seems to be pretty much over and I've (we've?) accepted only one image can be in the article for now, how would you guys feel about changing that one image to one of Engen? He's the most notable of the two actors and most of the article discusses his controversy and portrayal. If only one incarnation of this character can be pictured, in my opinion, it should be him.

On a side note, TAnthony, do you still think we should nominate the article for GA status soon? What do you think still has to be done to make it ready for that? Rocksey (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to get around to looking over your new "Characterization and portrayal" and "Reception" sections, after which I was figuring it might be time to push it forward. Back to the image discussion, it had actually occurred to me the Pauline Fowler contains several images that could be considered decorative (though some depict key moments/storylines), and they were present when the article went FA (though some additional ones were removed prior). Is this just a case of the images not being challenged? (J Milburn, don't get any ideas, LOL) Strictly reading the policy, it's hard to argue for more than one image here, and yet with the actor change and the gay storyline so notable and the reason for all the press coverage, it seems natural for there to be images of both performers as well as the Adam-Rafe seduction.— TAnthony^Talk 18:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just my usual perfectionist "cleanup" in the new sections (great work, BTW!) and the article seems as ready as ever to be nominated! I just realized we have an age issue here though, LOL. Any idea where we can find a reliable reference that he's 28, or do we ditch it from the infobox?— TAnthony^Talk 03:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, the great age debate follows us here lol I've never seen a source that puts the characters age at 28 so maybe we should just remove it. Rocksey (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, let's submit this for peer review ... I'd do it myself but I just submitted Oliver Fish. I'm curious to see if anyone in that discussion would think the article could use more images.— TAnthony^Talk 00:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea, I'll submit it. Rocksey (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced comma[edit]

This was probably a mistake by Finetooth when placing commas in the correct place for other sentences, but I am certain that the line In a subsequent June 10, 2009, interview with Branco" is not supposed to have a comma in it after 2009. It should be after interview, as it was before. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No tweak to this? Flyer22 (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I took care of it, like I should have originally done. I wanted others' thoughts first, in case they felt Finetooth was right on this. Flyer22 (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images again[edit]

This is what Finetooth had do say in the peer review about the images in the article: The fair-use rationales for the two images are a little thin. Would it be possible, for example, to replace either with a suitable free-use image? Are both images necessary for a reader to understand the text, or would one be enough? So do you guys think we should get rid of one of the images? Like I said above, if we do only have one image in the article, I think it should be the one of Engen. Rocksey (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just ask why are these users making problems out of having two pictures placed on the article? Why did they allow the templace to have the possibility of using three images if they'll delete them anyway? Also, does it mean ALL other articles should have one picture? And more importantly, is this just because the article is up FA? Dmarex (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is going to be put up for GA, and the image problem this article has faced does not set a predecent in my eyes. It was mainly targeted due to the image having had decorative images in it, in addition to the Engen image. We already have an American GA soap opera article in Dimitri Marick, and that article has two images of the two different actors who have portrayed that role. Flyer22 (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be the one of Engen, if only one image is to be there, it should be of the current portrayal. If you're saying that it should be Engen's image instead, it kind of answers the question of why both images should be there. - Epson291 (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think both images should be there too. But since the Engen image was deleted and the peer reviewer questioned the necessity of both images, I thought it was worth discussion.

Just because Muhney's portrayal is the more recent one doesn't mean his should automatically be the image kept. Engen's version of the character is much more notable. Rocksey (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this review is one editor's opinion, but I'm wondering if perhaps the placement of the second image might help the perception of its rationale. Maybe it's the infobox itself that's making the image seem decorative to some. Does anyone think that putting the Engen image into the Characterization pgh (near discussion of the actor), for example, might make a difference?— TAnthony^Talk 22:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it might, TAnthony. Anyone else want to weigh in on TAnthony's proposal? Flyer22 (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the new placement of the image. It might work. Rocksey (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name!![edit]

On the December 28th episode, the reverend referred to him as "Victor Newman, Jr." thus making it his legal name. That should come first in the article seeing as how his new bride's last name is "NEWMAN" not Wilson! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.131.250 (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to establish (hopefully with a tangible source) what name the series is using across the board, which may result in an article name change, etc.— TAnthony^Talk 15:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've noticed, the series typically refers to him as Adam Wilson with some exceptions like the one the IP mentioned. The official CBS site for The Young and the Restless uses Adam Wilson as the character's name and adds Victor Newman Jr. later as an a.k.a.[3][4] The sources I've found go back and forth on his name:

Adam Wilson [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]

Adam Newman [10], [11], [12]

Rocksey (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the research! I didn't revert the latest change (as annoying as it is) in good faith, but I wish the rabid soap fans would take common sense and policy into account. This topic should definitely be discussed and sources added to the article.— TAnthony^Talk 06:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's like a year later and I have to say I haven't heard him referred to as anything but "Adam Newman" on this show in I don't know how long. I think it's time the page was changed. --71.147.50.18 (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request (Google Book and News Archive results also appear to support the commonality claim).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Wilson (The Young and the Restless) → Adam Newman – Adam's character has gone legally by Newman since Muhney's entrance into the role nearly 3½ years ago. All of his spouses have carried the Newman surname. Plus, per WP:COMMONNAME it should be transferred into Newman. All publications such as Soap Opera Digest and Soaps In Depth refer to him as Adam Newman, not Adam Wilson. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 18:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. It's silly that he's not Adam Newman. He should have been moved years ago. --68.58.15.97 (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AGREE; he's been known as Adam Newman for long enough, no one refers to him as Adam Newman now; the character has just recently gotten married, and even she now uses the name Newman.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 07:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Adam Newman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BrickHouse337 (talk · contribs) 02:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Fairly well written. While the Guild of Copyeditors have yet to visit the page, the general grammar seems okay for now.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Looks fine; all of the sources are reliable and verifiable; good job.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Fairly well covered as far as focus.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Overall, the article is actually in good article condition. There are still areas of improvement, however, all articles should always have room for improvement, regardless of their status. Copyediting doesn't necessarily have to be done by the Guild, but as long as a request is there, it should get done soon or later. Pass. --Brick House 337 14:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching Young&Restless for years. There has been to many changes of the in the male actress of Adam Newman. You need to bring back Justin Hartley. Know matter what it take. He made the show more lively. I love his acting. He is a great actress. Someway, somehow he needs to come back to the show. LeslieMac (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Adam Newman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Adam Newman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://sn.soapnet.go.com/news/article/soapnet-interviews-evil-adam?page=0%2C1
Corrected formatting/usage for http://daytimeconfidential.zap2it.com/2010/12/10/ratings-rants-and-raves-shadam-sex-better-than-viagra-for-young-and-restless-ratings
Corrected formatting/usage for http://sn.soapnet.go.com/news/article/the-young-and-the-restless-sneak-peek-week-of-3512
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090530220750/http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=85598263&blogId=491217751 to http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=85598263&blogId=491217751
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6HiFfZdoe?url=http://emmyonline.org/mediacenter/daytime_40th_nominations.html to http://emmyonline.org/mediacenter/daytime_40th_nominations.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Adam Newman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adam Newman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]