Talk:Nick and Sharon

	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

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 June 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Untitled[edit]

Hi, I reverted this page to an older version since most of the material seems to come from an other source: http://www.soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/nick.php This is likely a copyright violation. Look at Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details, or leave a question on my talk page. Sander123 11:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late in stating this on this talk page, but this article has been cleaned up since its copyright violation, and not providing reliable references or real-world impact. It now provides reliable references and real-world impact, in accordance with its plot summary. Flyer22 22:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Newmans.jpg[edit]

Image:Newmans.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) 22:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section[edit]

The plot keeps getting overly lengthy with too many details, which is why I reverted back to a shorter version. I realize that the current one isn't perfect either because it doesn't include the entire story and focuses primarily on more recent events. That's why I'm starting this discussion. We need to rework this summary, while following Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Like the essay Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary explains, "Well-written plot summaries describe the major events in the work, linking them together with fairly brief description of less important scenes... While longer descriptions may appear to provide more data to the reader, a more concise summary may in fact be more informative as it highlights the most important elements. By focusing the reader's attention on the larger structures of a plot, without drowning it in trivial detail, a shorter summary can often help the reader to understand a work much better than an overlong one." Rocksey (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "e":

From List of The Young and the Restless characters (2010s): "UPDATE: Morgan Confirmed That Williams Is Joining Her At Y&R!". CBS Soaps In Depth. 10 January 2011. Retrieved 13 January 2012.
From Sharon Newman: "Y&R's Sharon Case Interview: "Shadam", "Sham", "Shick" & more!". Michael Fairman. 2011-06-05. Retrieved 2011-11-23.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic work on this article[edit]

I just checked in on this article and I'm very pleasantly surprised to see that it has been significantly fixed up very much beyond what I did with it. Excellent work, Arre 9. And regarding the page move, even though most of the other soap opera couple articles are currently titled by the characters' full names, I don't see the move as a bad thing either.

Again, great job. Fantastic job! Flyer22 (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! I moved the page because they aren't commonly referred to as "Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins", as Sharon doesn't go by Collins nor does Nick often go by Nicholas. I moved it after seeing Luke and Laura. So I'm glad you agree with the move. Ar re 12:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And none of the daytime soap opera couples are commonly referred to by their full couple names; that's why List of fictional supercouples does not list those couples by their full names. In fact, from what I've seen, most fictional couples aren't known by their full couple names. Some time ago, maybe 2007 or 2008 (I'd have to check), I think it was me who moved all the daytime soap opera couple articles to their full names because I viewed it as more encyclopedic and more informative for the general reader. Most general readers do not know these couples, and so the shortened name is not as informative. A consensus developed among the soap opera editors by simply following my lead on that. In the case of Luke and Laura, although I originally objected to titling the article by their shortened name, as seen in the move discussion at that article's talk page, they are a very famous couple and so disambiguation isn't needed as much for them. But, again, I don't see the shortened name of this article as a bad thing. And the full name vs. short name matter should maybe be revisited with a discussion at WP:SOAPS about it, but the full names have worked okay for years now. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]