Talk:List of Coronation Street characters/Archive 2

Tracy Barlow

She's been put back on returning by someone again, it seems to be a common occurrence that Tracy keeps appearing on the cast changes - I don't think anyone is sure of where we're at with Tracy at the moment. It's clear she's not coming out of prison anytime soon, but she could still make appearances from time to time, should she be moved to the recurring section until her appearances become more frequent perhaps? Ooh, Fruity Ooh, Chatty 21:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Character's Occupations

I think All the character's article should feature other jobs they had since coming to the street and not just the their current one, as these articles represent the characters as a whole and not just what they are currently doing. Brianwazere 21:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that sounds a great idea!! Bankhallbretherton (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree too, it's a good way to avoid a recentist slant in the infoboxes :) Frickative 23:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Charlotte Hoyle

I really don't think Charlotte Hoyle should have her own article,first of all there simply isn't enough sources or real life information on her and i really don't think she was brought in as a regular, she will probably leave after the current storyline has ended,what does everyone else think? Brianwazere 16:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, she doesn't warrant her own page. I don't have the time at the moment, do you mind returning the content to the minor characters page yourself? Ooh, Fruity Ooh, Chatty 18:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

All done but i kept the image if its there we might aswell use it:) Brianwazere 20:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I was also wondering does Lewis Archer warrant his own page, i mean he would hardly be recognized as a regular but rather as a recurring character, but correct me if you think im wrong Brianwazere 20:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Pam Hobsworth

Has Auntie Pam left? she has'nt offically left, has she. In scene in the bookies Deirdre & Bill mention her int he context of 'Bill & Pam' as an item, and didn't the producer say that Auntie Pam would be sticking around? please reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mintyyyy 2010 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

She hasn't officially left, no. There is no evidence of her departure, it is just one of those strange soap vanishing acts that occur every so often. I actually didn't realise she'd been removed from the list, I've added her back in now. Ooh, Fruity Ooh, Chatty 16:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If Phil Collinson wants to get rid of some young characters and keep some adult characters then why has he got rid of her? I bet she will be back when Molly has her kid! we can but watch! also they should bring Diggory back then too for a short spell too! This is where i think all soaps fail a bit. They never bring back characters even for short periods like we have never seen Todd Grimshaw since he left or Sarah-louise Platt, surely they are ear marked for a return at some point or even Martin to see David? Things like this should be concentrated on for the long term. If the actors dont want to come back as them then fair enough but they can always do a Nick Tilsley and change your body! Bankhallbretherton (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Wilson

Has anyone heard anything on his supposed return? Because of the lack of spoilers or anything leading to his return, I'm thinking the recent access Sean was given to Dylan was it, and that wherever DS took the story from got their facts wrong, and he isn't returning to the Street at all. Can anyone shed any light, or should we remove him from returning pending any further news? Ooh, Fruity Ooh, Chatty 21:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, well i agree about this it was supposed to be a 50th storyline so could come yet, but theres been no other news, but how could the character return full-time without jamie or violet. I suppose they could be killed - so sean gets custody but can you imagine that! But thats quite a commitment. I dont really know what to do, if hes not arrived before mid-November then i doubt its going to happen.Mintyyyy 2010 (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Recently Departed Characters

WHY WAS THIS REMOVED, IT WAS A GOOD SECTION! COULD WE POSSIBLY BRING IT BACK! Mintyyyy 2010 (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not really essential, but I don't see the harm in it. I've tidied it up a bit while also adding more content to it. Ooh, Fruity Ooh, Chatty 23:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with whoever reverted and said Peter and Molly are not dead yet, if you watched the episode yesterday Peter dies in hospital after marrying Leanne and Molly dies in the rubble after telling Sally the truth, I'd revert but this may lead to an edit war so I would like you to explain why we can't say Peter and Molly are not dead but Ashley is. its obvious that they are all dead as their loved ones have witnessed them dying, with Charlotte we know she is not dead yet as the paramedic said she had a weak pulse--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it's not obvious. The episode closed with Peter having a cardiac arrest - that does not mean he has died, no one confirmed anything. Same for Molly - no one has confirmed it, though as she is confirmed to be leaving, it is probable that she has died. There is no source, however, saying Molly/Peter are dead so don't say they are until/if it's confirmed. AD 17:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've also trimmed the list - it's supposed to be recent, and over a year ago isn't recent. I've left the past month or so in which is more sensible. AD 17:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've readded Molly as Digital Spy confirms she died. AD 17:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok we'll wait for Peter--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 17:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Just because Molly is dead doesn't mean the actress won't appear. In EastEnders, Larry Lamb, Lauren Crace, Charlie Clements and Devon Anderson were all credited after the character had died. In three cases it was because the actor was portraying a corpse, but in Anderson's case it was because he was seen on a video. Does the ITV website not gives the credits for upcoming episodes like the BBC does for EastEnders? AnemoneProjectors 18:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't. It's a shame, because we don't know if, like you say, they'll appear again as a corpse. We just have to wait until we have online confirmation following their final appearance, or rely on on-screen events. In response to your recent edit summary Anemone, take a look at List of past Coronation Street characters, I gave it a makeover a while ago and it's no longer in chronological order. As I said previously, the recently departed section isn't really needed, but at least now it does serve some sort of purpose. I still believe it needs to be bulked up a bit though, if not with more characters than with some sort of overview of each of them. Otherwise, is there any point? Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 20:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a TV listings site that can be used? Sometimes I've noticed people using one for EastEnders, but I can't remember what it is. I don't really want to start getting involved in Corrie articles, I have enough on my plate with EastEnders lol AnemoneProjectors 23:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

tvtv only has Molly in repeats now [1]. That's a pretty good website (and took me a looong time of nagging about unsourced content to find out it's where a lot of editors pull future credit info from.) Frickative 00:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's the site I was thinking of. It's been used to reference EastEnders twice, but the second time it turned out to actually be wrong. AnemoneProjectors 01:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Michelle Connor

Hi my eidt was removed- about michelle, as i put her also into returning- it was removed for some reason and i just thought that this may be usefull for people. This also how Digital spy list Patsy Palmer- whos also pregnant. Comments and views please :) Mintyyyy 2010 (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for leaving are stated on Michelle's page, there's really no need for it here. She also cannot return if she hasn't even left. When she does leave, we can just put her straight into returning rather than sending to past. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 23:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

didn't want craig gazey to go! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.182.136 (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Frank Foster (and supposed family)

I have just seen that someone has put 3 additional members to his family but the reference provided (link which i attempted to correct as it diverted to create an internal wiki page) shows no evidence of the addition 3 family, i have left them for now to see if someone can provide a reference. Many thanks Bankhallbretherton (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Best to revert in all cases. It's just someone trying to be clever. They think we won't notice a broken link when they put it as a reference. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 19:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

We've had someone adding hoax entries lately, quite elaborately with offical-looking links, so it's important to check all references and not assume because it's sourced it's ok. We need to be on the look out. AD 19:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've a;so noticed a few hoax edits like the Aleesha Compton, who keeps getting added, i mean might be an insider or something! but i doubt it! add by added refs they think we it looks more realMintyyyy 2010 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Another unreferanced edit stating That Teresa is to return, whats wrong with people its becoming a joke to be honest! Mintyyyy 2010 (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

FLAWS!

this page and the character pages have many flaws! many durations do not match up, proper format is not being used, departure/arrive/returninng dates are not accurate. this needs to be fixed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.132.13 (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Dennis Tanner

When Dennis Tanner comes back to the cobbles in may will he go above Ken Barlow in the cast list because he appeared before him in the first episode? --Tony (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Any way you look at it, he has to go first. He was credited first, and he appeared first. There's no issue really in my mind :) Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 19:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Bill Webster

I don't know why somebody keeps moving Bill Webster to the regular character list when he is clearly recurring at the moment.He has appeared once so far in 2011,hardly a regular character.For now I think it is best to leave him in the recurring characters list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.131.191 (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Will?

Hey guys !, I have noticed that there is a 'will' character entering the cobbles. As far as I know, he is a friend of Izzy's. Any other info about him? and could he create a page for him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clancerz (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Could we put this beside Will and Sunita's aunts?

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s3/coronation-street/scoop/a318810/sunitas-aunts-return-to-coronation-street.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clancerz (talk • contribs) 12:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't needed though, there is already a verifiable reference there. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 22:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It only says abcd and then Who's in, Who's out Inside soap

The Hoyles...

I thought that they were both departing following the end of this storyline... I couldnt find a reference to say that they are certainly going... Why have they been moved back to recurring characters? JMRH6 (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Because they aren't long term regulars, you've answered you're own question. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 00:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No yor read that wrong.... if they are departing... why have they been put back on the reccuring list and removed from departing list? is what i ment! JMRH6 (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no source to back up the claim that they are leaving. Wiki doesn't operate on guesswork. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 18:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

fruity, i know what you mean and im not trying to make an arguement out of it, its just that one min it said they are leaving and then the next they are removed from the departing list... i just wondered what was going on and if they are leaving or not!? JMRH6 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

AUNTY PAM

Does anyone actually know if Pam Hobsworth has actually left? Is it offical? I miss her. She has the potential to be a Corrie legend, a new Blanche. Altho no one will replace our Blanche. She was my idol. So can someone actually confirm that Aunty Pam has actually left? Same as Connie, Jack's lady friend. I hate it when soaps just write characters out. Especially, decent charcters like Aunty Pam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.225.31 (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is a shame that they write them out, we need to confirm that they have been written out, although Bill Wbster showed his face a few weeks back and had been away on holiday with Pam so she was mentioned... wonder why they wont show her any more? JMRH6 (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a forum...but to answer your question, no, nothing has been made official. She could come back, she probably won't. She's been moved to past never-the-less, until we get any information to prove otherwise. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 00:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Who makes these decisions? We are only meant to remove characters when there is a source. I do know what you mean though. Best thing I can suggest Fruity is that you have a look in the news archive, I forgot to add a source I found. It is recentish but forgot where, anyway it said "and Pam hasn't been since."Rain the 1 ^BAM 01:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I was reverting her being removed for a long time, but in my absence she was removed again, and I can't see any reason to add her back in at the moment. I think it should be looked at case by case rather than an overall non-removal unless sourced, otherwise if we were to do that then Ted Page, Minnie Chandra and Freda Burgess would all still be listed here even now, when they clearly aren't on the show anymore. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 18:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Xin Proctor

Isnt she leaving with graeme? she not in departure list...? JMRH6 (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well have you seen any source support your idea. Maybe that's why she is not there.Rain the 1 ^BAM 22:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

we shall see how long she stays then... i doubt they would get rid of graeme and not her too! JMRH6 (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC) oh yeah and here is my source! http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s3/coronation-street/news/a317874/corries-graeme-to-make-shock-xin-decision.html JMRH6 (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a pretty solid source actually, and the spoilers back it up, I've added it. Don't be so hesitant in future, if you think something needs correcting, just do it! :) Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 11:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Has there been any confirmation from ITV as to whether Xin actually does leave the show. ll I've seen is Graeme wants to leave with Xin. For all we know on Graeme's last day, Xin could have a heart-to heart with Tina and dump Graeme and stay in Weatherfield. Are there any spoilers where it states something to the effect of "Tina is depressed after Graeme and Xin's departure"? Perhaps we should wait until either there is official word or after the episode actually airs. JMO.65.94.246.123 (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)samusek2

Actors on Break

What's the policy regarding actors who take breaks from their roles? I ask this because I see two versions on this page. Helen Flanagan is taking a mini break but her dates on the "current characters" section are open ended ending with a - and she is not in the "Returning Characters" block. On the other hand, Craig Charles has been confirmed as leaving for three months to film the new series of Red Dwarf, and unlike the actors who play Chris and Cheryl, he is coming back, yet the dates next to Lloyd's line in the "Current Characters section" says 2007-2012 and he is added to the "Departing Characters" section. I just rechecked and both Rosie and Lloyd are in the "Departing" section but in the "Current", Rosie is open-ended and and Lloyd has 2012 as his departure date even if he will be returning.

I'm just confused at what the consensus for characters who are taking breaks should be. Should we put "temporary" next to their names in the "Departing section"? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. 65.94.246.123 (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC) samusek2

It has all gone pear shaped for Coronation Street - a lot of IP's keep vandalising the page (Probably their most entertaining moment of their day). It just needs a tidy up, the soapies know how it is meant to be. It'll be all corrected ASAP.Rain the 1 ^BAM 21:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

BETTY AND KIRK

Betty Williams and Kirk Sutherland are clearly reccurring characters these days although established.Therefore I think it is more appropriate to have them listed as such which I have done.They have no major storylines and are hardly ever seen.

We don't "downgrade" classification, no matter how unregular they are. GSorby - Talk! 21:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

GSorby i totally agree with you on this one:), Betty and Kirk should remain in the regular characters section:) Crazyfishsticks (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.digitalspy.ie/soaps/s3/coronation-street/news/a329125/corrie-boss-demands-new-storylines-for-15-characters.html

This link proves that Violet Wilson is returning ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clancerz (talk • contribs) 12:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Young characters

Characters like Amy, Simon, Aadi, and Asha are credited but characters like Liam, Jack, and Hope are not. Nor do they have an ITV.com profile (even though Aadi and Asha are credited, they don't have profiles while Simon and Amy do). Also, the definition of a recurring character is a character that "appears from time to time during the series' run. Recurring characters often play major roles in an episode, sometimes being the main focus. The character's return is often based on popularity...Recurring characters usually start out as guest stars in one episode but continue to show up in future episodes if the storylines or actors are compelling enough." This would suggest that the uncredited toddlers aren't recurring but it seems stupid to include them in the regular section when there is a recurring section. GrahamCrusty (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Terrence

Is Terrence still in the show? I've looked on the Eastenders website, and while it is listed as a current character, the same is also said of Archie, Chelsea and countless other past characters. Is anyone able to confirm this? Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of duration

I like bold edits, but I dislike this one. I'm opposed to removing duration dates - IMO it is a nice little bit of information just incase the general reader cannot be arsed to click around every article going. Why do you not want them there? As for it looking more tidy now - that is a matter of opinion. Massive replacement column filled with actor names and others then lots of blank space for those who did not have a previous actor.RaintheOne ^BAM 19:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I did this because the list is to provide basic information only. You know, when you look at the EE list, it looks so tidy and organised and reliable, whereas the Corrie list only looked like a spider across a page. On the Cast Changes, partial dates are always given. I just believe that only basic information should be included. Other things such as classification and duration can be accessed through the characters page, otherwise there is absolutely no point of having duration on the article! See what I mean? GSorby – Ping! 19:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not care about the EE list. This is Corrie' ... and George I think you have a bit of a weak arguement there. So basically we would have to remove duration dates from articles because a list has them.. they are seperate articles! TBH I thought about asking for whatever drug EE editors were taking when they dreamt that rule up. I just find it funny you'd rather the general reader to click about for a duration date when they've been perfectly accessible here for ages. If the other half of your point is that "classification" is available on the character page, then should't the present, recurring, departing, returning section headers all be removed too? While you are there you may want to remove actors too, after all this is all accessible in the article. Or maybe any mention of Vera Duckworth should be kept exclusively to her own article, with a link in Jack Duckworth's article for readers to follow to find out more about their relationship. Sounds stupid huh? That's what I thought when I saw editors droning on about this change for other lists.RaintheOne ^BAM 20:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean remove the table titles! I meant the columns that said either Regular, Recurring etc. GSorby – Ping! 21:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I just thought I was helping you. After all, you are the self appointed content coordinator.RaintheOne ^BAM 21:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't be like that :( I thought I was helping out a bit that's all. GSorby – Ping! 21:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay sorry hun. I know you were because you're a real star when it comes to soap articles. I just thought you'd be the first to discuss it before making such a bold move.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I merged the cast tables, if anyone wants to check it over. RE the duration dates, it would make it easier for adding back returning characters, etc. rather than checking every character's pages to find out when they joined, and it would ensure that the characters are (for the most part) in the correct order, but that's just my opinion. Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Eeek. This page is really losing it's footing.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Merging the regular and recurring characters was the only idea I could come up with to sort the WP:OR problem, but I'm sure there must be another way (though I can't think of one). I think perhaps a discussion should have occurred before any drastic changes were made to the table, but what's done is done. I think there will be a few editors who agree with Vuvuzela2010 though. I wish Ooh, Fruity was here, so we could get his opinion. - JuneGloom Talk 23:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In theory. Could I revert the article back to using dates? It's just that no one has said that they prefer no dates in this discussion yet.RaintheOne ^BAM 23:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess so, if there's no consensus for a dateless table. - JuneGloom Talk 23:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The merging of the two tables was a good idea to avoid any more edit warring, OR issues and so on. We talked about that earlier, so it was a good bold move. However - I'd like the dates added back again. Or we should atleast talk about removing everything else as you can access in the individual articles.RaintheOne ^BAM 03:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with adding dates back but no with the merging of the regular and recurring characters. Feels a bit silly to have minor and recurring in the same table as long term cast. D4nnyw14 (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I liked it also with the returning dates of the characters as now i look at the list and think... hmmm when are they coming back...? I would love to see them re-instated as I think it gives order to the lists too! JMRH6 (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the dates can be added back to the returning characters, but only if they are reliably sourced mind. - JuneGloom Talk 23:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I want to make the duration column look more presentable so I think that first two digits of the longer periods of date should be recorded like this: 1992-1993 or 2002-2007 as it sets a higher standard and missing the first two digits off i.e. such as 1992-93, appears lazy. Also between 1979 and 1982, Audrey Roberts was a recurring character and not a continuous series regular so there should not be a dash between the 1979 and the 1982. Similarly between 1973 and 1975, Peter Barlow was not a regular but a recurring character and did not appear at all during 1974. Tracy Barlow left the show as a regular in 1995 and made recurring appearances in 1996 when she got married and 1997 when she and her husband visited her parents and did not appear continuosly as a regular. Also it claims that Kirk Sutherland did not become a series regular until 2001. Are there any sources to back this up? Just wondered82.38.41.198 (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, Emily Bishop, then Nugent, was absent during the end of 1961 and the start of 1962 as Eileen Derbyshire participated in the Equity strike that took place at the time. Also, Leanne Barlow was absent from July 2006 to March 2007, for a period of eight months whilst Jane Danson took maternity leave after giving birth to her first child. I think these should be taken into account and mentioned.82.38.41.198 (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand date formats here. It is not about being lazy and having "1992-1993" as opposed to "1992-93" is not a "higher standard". Think of duration as broad. A character that keeps making appearances each year... is a contining thing... therefore there is no need to but all breaks less than a calender year in. Btw, something else that does not work in your favour is that you are one of the most disruptive editors when it comes to infoboxes.RaintheOne ^BAM 17:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No I admit I don't understand these date formats. Before the duration was removed, the date formats were fine as they are. I do not understand why you changed it differently when you put it back. I thought the point of Wikipedia was to present as accurate information as possible but you don't seem to be doing this. The original duration column was what I would have called accurate duration or exact duration82.38.41.198 (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The date formats follow WP:YEAR, which is part of the Manuel of Style, a style guide for all Wikipedia articles. The years are still accurate. - JuneGloom Talk 16:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

How are they accurate? Emily Bishop was absent during the end of 1961 and the start of 1962. Leanne Battersby was absent between the end of 2006 and the start of 2007. Peter Barlow did not appear onscreen at all during 1974. This information has been missed out. Surely this is evidence of apparent inaccuracy. Where is the evidence/sources that Kirk Sutherland did not become a series regular until 2001? I do not understand the formats. As I mentioned earlier the list was not like this previously so I don't understand when and why this decision was made to change it to how it is now.82.38.41.198 (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

RaintheOne, in answer to your assertion that duration is broad, I stand by my opinion that broad duration appears lazy to any viewer/user who is searching for the information. In this country we are a foundation of knowledge and learning and I thought that we British could set an example to the world of our high standards and a good starting point of this would be to have the duration recorded as accurate and exact as possible. Also you state that my editing of infoboxes is disruptive. Care to explain why and how?82.38.41.198 (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree lets get the dates back in for departing and returning characters and the new comers at least then worry about the others later, I agree with what the last person put regards that we should set an example by having them up to date, this page should not be compared to any other soap as it is an individual and it should be rivalry to keep the pages up to date. If your a Soap box addict then work on them all if you wish but i would only work on emmerdale and corrie to keep them upto date, once the work has been done then it shouldnt have to be done again for long standing characters. these details of when they have appeared in the show and for the exact durations of appearences should be included in full on the characters own profiles so that they can be re reffered to if they leave the show and incase they return JMRH6 (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Just replying to the post above JMRH6, if the dates in the table do not match the ones in the articles then that maybe down to all the table reorganising. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to go through the table and make sure the correct years are stated. JMRH6, if you know the dates for the cast changes, then please go ahead and re-add them. If the sources do not state a date for a character, leave the space blank or put TBA. If you need help with the table at all, let me know. - JuneGloom Talk 23:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi June! thanks and yes when I get some time I will add them, may be able to start now, will see JMRH6 (talk) 09:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, I think I have another solution to the original research issue concerning the regular and recurring characters. - JuneGloom Talk 22:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What is it? :)RaintheOne ^BAM 22:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the logic behind the Eastenders page so I wouldn't want to see it replicated here. Suggesting that the column for duration dates is surplus to requirements when the Eastenders page includes a section for previous actors which is definitely surplus to requirements. Burbridge92 (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Betty Williams

I cannot see Betty in the list... ok the actress has died RIP Betty Driver but with all due respect her character is still in the soap and will be until the characters funeral in the new year. So I have reinstated the charachter to the list and the departure month and year. any objections please state so here before removal JMRH6 (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The character isn't in the soap though, she'll be mentioned but so will other characters that have left, the character won't appear again so she is past. D4nnyw14 (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldnt be surprised if they did what they did for Amy Winehouse when she collected the award. Even though she was dead-R.I.P. it showed a mirage. Collinson said her exit would be 'fitting', so she wont just die off screen, she'll be appear in more episodes. MayhemMario 14:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Would archive footage count as her still being present though? Wouldn't she just be a guest? D4nnyw14 (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No- Betty would still be a regular- if you want to list her as a guest that's fine- but thats means her departure place is in cement- it should stay there now. MayhemMario 15:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we even have confirmation that she'll appear in archive footage? Or is it just guess work? D4nnyw14 (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It is original research on my behalf- but in the source- " the scenes" means she'll be appearing. MayhemMario 15:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The scenes are probably referring to her off-screen death like with Blanche the scenes were Deidre receiving the news, the scenes could be whoever receiving news of her death. D4nnyw14 (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think untill her funeral we list her as departing, then we no for sure. MayhemMario 15:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I very much agree, if the character is still in the soap and has not died but the character has died off screen then they should remain in the list, if there is a planned funeral then they should remain on the list until the funeral has aired on screen. To remove her now would be an insult to the character and the actress. As far as we are aware the character is still alive in the soap. JMRH6 (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

But the character is past if she isn't going to appear again. It isn't a list of characters that are still alive it is a list of present characters. It hardly insults the actress either. D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Put it this way, there are going to be storylines surrounding her death so she needs to be included until she dies onscreen. Meaning that when her funeral scenes take place she will still be an active character, Once this has taken place she will finally and officially be written out of the soap and can there fore be removed. Its like Bet Lynch could possibly return for the funeral along with other characters. But they will not be part of the main list as they may be in it for only one episode and will be written out of it again as they will be classed as a guest character. JMRH6 (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that makes sense. She hasn't moved away from the street and the character hasn't yet died even if the actress has. Blanche Hunt was a different matter because she was out of the soap on an extended holiday when the actress (and character) died. Burbridge92 (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that she should be removed. Do you know why there is this list on wikipedia? its so that people can look online and see who the characters are... so now people are going to come on here and think whos funeral were we watching on that episode? they can see that information cause it has been removed, the character is still going to be in a storyline even if she wont appear they may show a past scene that had her in it and the actress still deserves to be mentioned on here until the character is written out! Thats my view anyway JMRH6 (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to bring up Frankie Baldwin as an example. The character was used in a storyline in Romanian Holiday, but the actress didnt appear. Did that make her a current character? Not in my opinion, and I don't consider Betty to be any different, her final scenes have been aired, and I consider her to be a past character. Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Romanian Holiday was a spin off and not the main soap, just like HollyOaks did spin offs too, its different to the main program, likewise for Eastenders spin off that had the younger characters in their own spin off a few years back. It is debateable if spin offs should be recorded on the main program list, I would say not. Betty is alive on screen and the character will feature in the funeral episode. We always think about the actors and if they will appear again, but i think until the funeral scenes air then that is when a deceased character should be written out. They usually have a photo of the person at a funeral on the coffin. So this will also be a photo of the actress that played her. So in my opinion keep for now. JMRH6 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The spin off's are not that different from the main programme, if Romanian Holiday was brodcast as a normal episode of Corrie, would Frankie have been counted? To use an example from Corrie proper, Violet Wilson was involved in a storyline that had her going into hospital and leaving Sean to take care of Dylan, despite her actress not appearing again. And photos cannot count, a photo of Blanche was also seen recently, and they can probably be seen in most houses on the street. Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Blanche was written out of the soap with a funeral, the same will be done with betty, that will be when she has left the soap, if she is still seen in photos then that is different cause as far as we know she is still alive in the soap so technically still an active character althought the actress has unfortunately died. JMRH6 (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Jenny "Eclaire"

Are there any reliable sources to indicate that this character will re-appear, rather than being a one-off? Also, no surname was listed for her in the credits for her one and only appearance to date, so it should not be listed here....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

But there was a reference for her last name, which is probably why it was included. I don't know about any future appearances though. I'll have a search. - JuneGloom Talk 15:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This [2] mentions her surname and I did find a site that mentioned the role was just a one episode guest appearance. - JuneGloom Talk 15:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say that if the surname was not listed in the credits or mentioned on screen, it should not be included. The People (hardly a bastion of journalistic integrity at the best of times) could have been misinformed, after all, how likely is it that really the scriptwriters would have given her the exact same name as Jenny Eclair.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Split lists vs reoccuring characters

Paul Kershaw, Kirsty (tyrones girlfriend), Simon Barlow, Amy Barlow and Pam Hobsworth should be under the reoccuring charachters surely as they arent on screen much... i think this is why it was put into one list as its easy to manage and it doesnt matter if they appear once a month or every episode. Please someone clarify this! JMRH6 (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The table is back to being whole again. The editor who split it needs to be directed to the discussion above. - JuneGloom Talk 15:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice one June! I prefer the one list personally! too much to maintain as two lists! :) JMRH6 (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Izzy's mate isnt on the list....

The lad that cause gary and her to split up... cant think of his name... cant see him on the list tho... needs adding! JMRH6 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Any reliable sources indicating that he will appear again.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Jack Dobbs

Hasnt his name been changed to Webster now? JMRH6 (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Date removal

What's the point in having a column for departure date/arrival date when no date is actually listed. If it's not revealed, then it back-ups my point regarding 'what's the point'. It just makes the entire page look silly and should be removed. JackJackUK (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with that. GSorby – Ping 14:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't. If there are reliable sources then I think the dates should be included, whether that be just the year or the full date. The dates show the reader in what order and when the character is departing/returning/debuting. - JuneGloom Talk 16:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Logically, the character departing first would go first anyway, and the reader could just click on the character to see a more detailed synopsis of their departure and the date anyway. The majority of characters who leave will not leave 2 or 3 years after they've announced they're to leave. JackJackUK (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

.... JackJackUK (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think removing durations is ok in some cases. However, not return/debut dates because this information isn't as readily available. It aids the reader to find the information out more quickly and efficiently as opposed to sifting through each given artickle to find the information. I say this because, unlike the duration dates, this information isn't available for quick reference in the character infobox.Rain the 1 18:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand, it's like with the current page at the moment a few of the characters are just listed as returning/departing in "2012", and I'm questioning whether that actually helps them? It tells them they're departing this year, hallelujah, but most characters won't announce they're departing and then leave years later. I don't know lol. JackJackUK (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I know - although some characters departures are announced near the end of the year. They can either depart the same year - or the following year. The same happens with arriving characters.Rain the 1 20:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the last comment! They should be kept though and to get an idea of when somone is leaving the day month and year is esential to for some sort of order. Katherine Kelly announced well in advance in 2011 that she was leaving but didnt leave till last week in 2012. if you look at this List of current Home and Away characters#Upcoming and returning characters the "Upcoming and returning characters" bit is a good way of merging the article but i do find it a bit messy and like the current format. JMRH6 (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with ordering. The characters should be listed in order of departure/return anyway without having a date listed, it's logic lol. Exactly, your last point says she left in the next calendar year: characters won't leave 3 or 4 years after saying they're departing will they? Just putting "2011" is hardly going to benefit the reader when there are like 365 days in that year they could be leaving.JackJackUK (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well exact dates often become available and are added in due course. You are treading old ground, I have already said this. If the departure date is 2011 then obviously the reader will know the character is not set to depart the following year. You say that characters will not leave up to three years after they quit - but how do you know this? Do you have a Crystal ball? An actor could be locked into a contract and not leave for a while.Rain the 1 13:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah if their contract if 4 years, for all we know they may renew it and stay on, we don't make assumptions that they're leaving in 2012 just because their contract ends in that year. And the comment about characters leaving 3 or 4 years, well can you please name a character who has then? And you talk about crystal balls, yet not everything on Wikipedia is sourced. JackJackUK (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do you need examples of actors that stayed longer than the year they quit? It is a perfectly plausible scenario... the first one that springs to my mind is Emma Rigby who quit in 2008 but Hannah departed in 2010. Yes, not everything on Wikipedia is sourced, but I'd remind you that on here there is no deadline. I'm not sure of what relevance unsourced information has to this discussion.Rain the 1 13:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hannah Rigby also quit in November 2008 and left in February 2010 which is just over one year, and I'm talking in terms of longer than that, around 2-3 years plus.JackJackUK (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Still doesn't change the fact she quit in 2008 and her character left in 2010. You wanted an example and I gave you one. What is the problem?Rain the 1 14:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that's clearly not an example is it. It's just over one year, is that 3 or 4 years? No.JackJackUK (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a perfectly okay example, one that can be used to illustrate why these dates are useful.Rain the 1 22:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Surnames....

I know this has been discussed before but I wanted to highlight it again... the use of female characters surnames... so If they get married they still keep their maiden name on here... I think this is wrong cause if they are married they should loose their maiden name and adopt the new surname. I know this is a time period thing that is how long the character has been known as that surname for but if a character was in the soap for 3 years and then married and then left the soap, then later returned in 2 years time... would they still have their maiden name or their married name? just as an example. Cause I think it is very confusing that the characters do not adopt their new surname straight away once married... they are even credited in the soap as their married surnames so why can this not be done here? It is technically false naming characters if they have been married and their name in our lists remains as their maiden name. If someone can give me a good enough explanation or help me understand why this is happening I would be very grateful. Wikipedia would not have for example Cheryl Cole down as 'Cheryl Tweedy' still would they cause she got married! just think this should be the case for soap characters too. does this not make sense? Thanks JMRH6 (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Leanne Barlow return 24th Feb 2012

I have reverted the removal of information because Leanne has left the cobbles and gone to stay with Toyah in London for a short time... If you had read the reference you will see that the closing line states "Coronation Street airs Leanne's comeback episode on Friday, February 24 at 8.30pm on ITV1." If you are going to attempt to revert the latest edit to this then please discuss it here first. The reference provided for the current information is valid, unless you can find another source saying that she has not left the street for a short time then please post it here. Thanks JMRH6 (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted before you started this discussion - no good telling me to look at the talk page for more information before you start the discussion. Jane Danson never left, we deal with actual real world information here - Leanne stayed away from Coronation Street for a couple of weeks - she was not written out of the series. Unless you live on Coronation Street, I'm not sure how you are weighing this one up...Rain the 1 03:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I didnt think you would have been reverting it so soon, i was writing this talk page topic as you reverted. The reference provided says about the "comeback" scenes so this proves she left the street. your going off the actress and not the character. This is probably why the soaps pages have a bad reputation beacuse the are so many silly rules (like the one my previous topic above this one that everyone seems to have ignored.) Some wikipedia rules have been made in good will but do not actually work and can cause great confusion. This is why the soaps pages can be innacurate then you get the people that vandalise the pages too. The best thing is if you can find a valid reference that can back up your work then use it. I dont want to fall out over this though :) JMRH6 (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I just do not agree. Soap editors work hard these days to keep articles accurate. We do not deal with idle gossip - you imagine your average soap viewer thinking that Leanne has left the series - which she never - it is just part of a storyline. The source says nothing about the character being written out of the series. It is dealing with an in universe aspect of the series. As for your edit summary, it highlights that may need more experience about writing about fiction - where we have to abide by the real world perspective. "A list of characters is it not" - Yeah it is - but it meant to have the element of fact, and Jane Danson or Leanne was never written out of the series - What happens next time Rita goes to see Mavis for the weekend? Do we list her is departing for two days?Rain the 1 04:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Danson only left the series for a couple of weeks. In fact, she didn't even leave the series at all. GSorby – Ping 10:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I know ahhh, obviously just part of the storyline.Rain the 1 16:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

your just being perdantic now, if rita goes to see mavis then that is different, but if a character has gone for weeks then it is a longer time period. I think that it is very unclear and very messy to write on the soap wikipedia pages as there is too little guideance. Maybe the soaps wikiprojects need to have a better guideance on this and come up with something that actually works. Cause their pages do not all flow the same or sing from the same hymn sheet! The element of fact is that the characters are off screen for a number of weeks. maybe some guideance and rules showing that if a character is to be off screen or leave the street for X amount of weeks or if they leave and go and live with somone for a month or two then they should have left the street. The page is supposed to be about the characters not the actors. At present it simply is all based on if the actors have left or not.

Betty will never be on screen again but her character is still alive, she was even mentioned the other night when somone asked stella "how is betty?" so she is still an active character although she will not be seen again. This proves that this page is been written about the actors and not the characters! JMRH6 (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that you do not want to accept WP:Real world - "Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world." - That is what we do here, we follow the actors contracts, the production teams intentions etc - they never wrote the character out of the series. Period.Rain the 1 19:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok I shall leave you in the corrie fantasy world and go back to editing in the real world, if your going to be snotty about it. I dont come on here for people to be like that with me. Good bye JMRH6 (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see what I have done wrong here. I have stated more than once why we do not go by character's movements. I thought it would help if I pointed out the guideline. I do not live in any Corrie fantasy world, as evidenced by liking of applying the real world perspective to this list. I do not think that there was anything "snotty" there either. I'm not the one stating that these pages have a "bad reputation" with soap fans, branding them "inaccurate", calling the guidelines applied "silly rules" and voicing support for the list to adhere to character's movements. I think I was rather polite in the face of such accusations.Rain the 1 22:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"Soaps have a bad press on here because articles associated with them were better suited a fansite" Taken from your own Profile page... anyway I think this is getting too personal for on here so as I say I wont be editing on the soap pages now, unless I see vandalism, which i have reverted a lot in the last few years on here. So I think we should call this disagreement quits and agree to disagree on on this topic. The best thing I can do is leave the work to you as you. JMRH6 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well you are just trying to point score. I said that a while ago, not in this context. They have a bad press with the general readers and admins. They are my own personal views - I am loath to use them in community discussions as it is not productive. However, the same sentence you quoted is the opposite of what you said. That they have a bad rep with fans in your words. Who cares about Corrie fans, these articles are not written with them in mind.Rain the 1 00:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Lloyd Mullaney

Lloyd's duration says '2005-06, 2007-' yet he left in 2011 and is not returning until next month, would that not mean 2005-06, 2007-11, 2012-? 92.28.70.138 (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Regular vs recurring - continiued

• Id like to put my discussion forward as i dont think the page looks right with regular characters and recurring characters i.e small babies mixed together. I mean you could hardly but Asha or Aadi Alahan in the same column as Ken Barlow!? Please look into this as im all for getting it changed to make it look better also as all the other soaps have you could include a 'Recurring and Guest Characters' table to make it easier to to see who's minor, and who's not. Just an idea!92.28.70.138 (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Regular vs recurring

Is the distinction between regular and recurring characters based on anything other than people's own personal opinions? If not, the distinction should be removed. As an example, Dr Carter, who only makes incredibly sporadic appearances of no significance, is listed as a regular while Marc Selby, who gets far more airtime and more significant plot development than many characters in the "regulars" table, is only listed as recurring. Is there a reliable source that lists certian characters as regular and certain as recurring? If not then it is pure OR and the tables should be merged together -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Only characters with a source to say they are temporary, are in a few episodes only or are a small baby that gets no lines should be recurring. Marc, Matt and Frank are regulars in any case. Simon Barlow as recurring? WTFRaintheOne ^BAM 18:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it. It still needs updating more. Some of the kids have profiles too btw. Amy, Dylan, Russ.. - then The alahan twins and Liam have not.RaintheOne ^BAM 19:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Amy Barlow needs her own page by now, also russ is leaving soon so prob not much point! Dyland is a could have a page but his future is uncertain, id like to think they will keep him! Also The reason that the kids are recurring is that they are not adults and that the kids are not seen as much as them, there again that can be argued as emily bishop hasnt been seen for some time, nor has betty... scary mary and norris are a bit quiet at the moment too! JMRH6 (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-notable fictional children really do not need their own articles. Could you find ten or more reliable references detailing casting, development and reception for them? I doubt it. - JuneGloom Talk 15:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There is only one child in Coronation Street with any potential for an article and that is Simon Barlow. He has had his own set of storylines, won an award, been nominated for others and is talked about in sources. Anyone else is a lost cause. He is obviously a regular too.. RaintheOne ^BAM 01:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In my book i think we need a clear rule on this. Personally Characters like Amy, Russ, Simon, Faye are REGULARS they occasionally have there own storylines, where as the babies like Jack, Hope, Liam are RECURRING, Dylan also is a regular in my book and is leaving. But as for non-child Recurring i believe that Characters brought in for a specfic storyline are reccuring; so Ginny, Marc, Brian are all Recurring. Even though Ginny has little to no airtime, Marc has lot more airtime in comparision and Brian in a way has two storylines; John Stape saga (Sort of ended for him now) and the Brian and Julie romance. Unfortunatly, there is'nt a way we can say this what a recurring charcter is, we just have to make collective decison me thinks. But Matt Carter is difficult one hes niether Regular or Recurring. Mintyyyy 2010 (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to add something to the mix about Dr. Matt Carter. There are articles published in the last month like the one below saying that he is to get together with Tina and he's getting a larger role in the program. So that would suggest that he is going to become regular. Also I just got the new cast cards from the Press Office and I did receive a card featuring Marc Selby. The thing is the UK soaps don't mention the actor's status like the American soap magazines do. They will say actor X is bumped up to contract. Then people here would move that character up to the contract section and that's that. On the Brit soaps, even though it's sourced that someone is getting a larger role, like Dr. Carter, some people think they should only moved with regards to airtime. There is no real mention on contract status sometimes, (well maybe on the Ozzie Soaps). I don't mind but I just wanted to answer you guys about Dr. Carter. This is a bit too confusing for me.

http://www.digitalspy.ca/soaps/s3/coronation-street/news/a326229/coronation-street-doctor-wants-darker-plot.html

174.89.239.89 (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)samusek2

Here is the proposal then - anyone with a character profile is a regular unless a reliable source says other wise? It'll sure stop the guessing game and gives a solid standing point.. About Matt, he is contracted to the show long term, has a profile and has been there a bit now. So just because you noticed he doesn't do much means shit. Bill Webster didn't do much nor did Natsha Blakeman for her first year...RaintheOne ^BAM 04:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that an actor that is considered a "guest star" portrays a recurring character. An actor that is in the regular cast obviously a regular character. Actors which play a role for a single storyline before leaving should be considered guests (guests seem to range from actors who play Policeman and the like to Marc Selby). Actors which play a character for over a year with multiple storylines (eg Kylie, the Armstrongs), are regular. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 21:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chris! but there again the Alahan kids arent really in it much so does that make them recurring? I think they should be regular as they are long running characters, but they arent in it alot... where as simon barlow is definately a regular! Betty isnt seen now much but is still classed as a regular as she is a long running established character... should we have a third section or revamp this page to display the content in a different way? JMRH6 (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It is tempting to say that characters who are played by actors who are considered guests should not be included in the last at all, and as per what I said before that would mean no Recurring characters section whatsoever. However, guest roles like Andrew Hall's of Marc Selby are worthy of notice and that is where the Recurring characters section is needed, because they appear for the period of a storyline. Obviously not all guest roles should be in the recurring section - many of them only appear for one episode at the least (policeman). Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 09:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, if an actor/actress is officially considered a guest, they should not be shown in the departing characters section (Marc Selby, again). Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 09:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

People are constantly changing Simon, Amy, and others from Regular characters to recurring characters - it seems there is confusion about what is meant by recurring characters. I'm not going to revert the last person who changed it because I don't want to start an edit war. People are also constantly changing the durations incorrectly. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 13:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If a character has an itv.com profile they should be shown on the list and there is no recurring section. Although this is kinda tricky because the site still shows the likes of Connie Rathbone and Marc Selby even thought they've both left, whilst Aadi and Asha have no profile at all even though they are clearly in it. The recurring section is pure WP:POV. GrahamCrusty (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's more like WP:OR. - JuneGloom Talk 12:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What needs to be done? GrahamCrusty (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, to stop something being Original Research, one usually adds reliable sources to back up the claims. I suspect this will be a little harder to do here. It may have to come down to merging the recurring and regular tables together and just calling them all present characters. I doubt that would be a popular idea, but it would solve the problem of OR though. Let me think on it some more and I'll get back to you. - JuneGloom Talk 15:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If you don't think of anything else, I'd be happy for them to be merged.RaintheOne ^BAM 15:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If the tables are merged, should characters like Ginny, Ruth, and Leon be shown at all since there is no reliable sources to confirm they are nothing more than guest cast (eg, there are no itv.com profiles). GrahamCrusty (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please can people stop moving recurring characters like Simon Barlow, Amy Barlow, Russ Gray etc. They are in reccuring characters for a reason. I really don't like moving them around! It is hard work! :-) Eaststreetlover 17:31 1st September 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

But they aren't recurring. Recurring characters are usually guests who appear for the course of a single storyline. GrahamCrusty (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that's not right. Recurring characters appear from time to time, not just for one storyline. - JuneGloom Talk 22:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Then why are guest characters like Ruth Walsh and Ginny Portis in the recurring characters section if recurring means appears from time to time - they are in current storylines! I have been under the impression for a long time that recurring characters were characters who were fairly recently introduced and have an uncertain future. This is where it all knuckles down to the fact that the whole idea of a recurring characters section is WP:POV and WP:OR.GrahamCrusty (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

They are in that section because there is no where else for them to go. Other soap opera cast lists use 'Recurring and guest characters' as the heading, so maybe a change there would help (though remember you would have to go around and correct the links in the infoboxes). I'm still struggling to find another solution to the problem that doesn't result in one big table. - JuneGloom Talk 15:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Where has the recurring characters box gone? It should stay where it is to differentiate series regulars from recurring/guest characters and not bung all characters together, regardless of importance.82.38.41.198 (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The recurring characters have been merged with the regular characters to combat the Original Research problem. If you can think of another way to solve that particular issue, then please leave your thoughts here. - JuneGloom Talk 20:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was a problem. It seemed OK as it was. Recurring characters are characters that either A) appear in the show from time to time and are not credited such as small children, B) Characters that appear in the show from time to time as part of certain storylines or C) Characters that appear in the show from time to time as part of a current storyline as plot devices then leave once the storyline has concluded. It seems quite simple to me. What was the problem?82.38.41.198 (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That is where the Original Research problem came from. It is just everyones POV without any hard sources. There is your problem.RaintheOne ^BAM 17:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but i find the character lists very confusing! People like Lesley Kershaw and Ken Barlow in the same list, is pathetic and confusing! I think the Recuring Character box needs to be brought back! Theres allways going to be discussions as to who is a recuring and whos a regular, but thaths the way it is!! Most viewvers wouldn't have a clue who Lesley Kershaw was!! C'mon man LITTLEMIXER (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion create a Temporary Characters section then? Or just call it Recurring!! The follow should be on that list!!;

• Paul Kershaw
• Anne Foster
• Sam Foster
• Lesley Kerhsaw

I mean come to think of it, will the latter two appear again?? And The 'Cast Changes' section, needs clearing up! Departing section is fine. The trouble is the returning and future sections, Beth is a guest character! I can't imagine she'll be around for to long? And is Danny is who Becky goes off with so is temporary, Milton im sure is only there for a few weeks im sure the actor was only there for a three week stint? Maybe adding a 'Role' column Stating wether a character is Regular, Recurring or Guest? Regular- There for the forseeable (EXAMPLE: Kirsty Soames/ Faye Windass) Reccuring- There for a spefic storyline (EXAMPLE: Mark Selby/ Anne Foster) Guest- There for a spefic length of time- no longer than 3-4 months (Milton, Danny Straton) But is it really a good thing having Paul & Lesley Kershaw in the same list as Ken/Deirdre Barlow!!! LITTLEMIXER (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see why original research might be a problem, but I really think the page needs a guest and/or recuring section. For example, Juliette Kaplan (Agnes Tinker) has stated on Digital Spy that she was asked to appear in four episodes and that this was later extended to eight. Therefore at the moment she clearly isn't a regular, but it wouldn't make sense to list her as a departing character after just eight episodes, as a stint that short suggests she was never meant to be staying. But the fact that Kaplan's initial short contract was extended (and that we have a relaible source to prove this) and that Agnes is staying in the street with family who are all regulars means a sensible case to consider her a recurring character could be made. Also someone with a definite end date like Linda Armstrong (I know she was credited under her new married name but the credits were too small for me to catch it!) could then be listed as a guest rather than a current character. Smurfmeister (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Bettys Funeral character returns

I have read the following article that states that there could be characters returning as some of the actors and actresses have signed up to come back as a goodbye send off for the character. Should we add them to the returning as a guest appearance? Millar, Paul (27 January 2012). "'Coronation Street' exec says old faces will return for Betty funeral". Digital Spy. Hearst Magazines UK. Retrieved 30 January 2012.

I am interested in your thoughts... JMRH6 (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No idea but how on earth can BETTY HERSELF return for this? This list says she's yet to depart the show! –AnemoneProjectors– 14:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Are all these years really necessary?

The character durations seem to clutter up the entire page, like for example Emily Bishop is listed as being in the show from 1961, 1962-66, 1967, would it not be easier to just list her as being there as 1961- considering there were no missing years. The same with Dennis Tanner, instead of 1960-62,63-68,2011-, it would make more sense to list him as 1960-68, 2011- as the only missing years from him the 43 year break between 1968 and 2011. Any character breaks can be discussed on their article. Reli source (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes they are. Both Philip Lowrie and Eileen Derbyshire participated in the Equity Actors' strike and were offscreen for a considerable time. Derbyshire went on maternity leave in 1966 and didn't return until early the following year. Both times they had effectively departed the show and their contracts would have been broken.92.232.245.253 (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If Wiki is keen to remain accurate then the years must stay unless for example a character was absent for only a few months. William Roache for example frequently took breaks lasting up to 3 months throughout the 70s whilst he performed in plays. Of course none of that is noted here, which is fine. Although I do think Ken's most recent break owning to the personal life of the actor should be taken into account in his duration. He's been gone over a year easily, already and isn't expected back until late Summer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.96.19 (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Maternity leave should not be considered an exit - a fundamental principle of maternity leave is that you are NOT leaving your job. If an actress choose to leave to have children - i.e. does not sign a new contract - and is then made an offer to return at a later date, that's different; that's two separate stints. Smurfmeister (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Including previous actors and cleaning up durations

Previous actors

After viewing the List of past Coronation Street characters and seeing that recast characters have all their actors listed, I made a draft for the list of current characters if anyone wants to view and discuss whether or not it could be a good format. Obviously characters like Peter Barlow and Tracy Barlow will have a number of different actors, but I feel it is good to keep the history of the character and actor, take Nick Tilsley for example, Ben Price has played him since 2009, but Adam Rickitt still played the character for a long time, so it makes sense including previous actors. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Durations

As for the Durations pane, many do not match the article, if someone left in 2011 and returned in 2012, it's better that the duration reads 2011– rather than 2011, 2012, my suggestion on this matter is similar to the above discussion by User:Reli source. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone has fiddled about with the durations for Peter, Leanne, Carla and Lloyd. It looks a bit messy at the moment. Peter's departure is not permanent and he will return by the end of the year. Leanne and Carla both went on maternity leave during 2009 but came back in the same year. Lloyd left at the end of last year and returned this year. Craig Charles did temporarily cease his contract and he signed a new one when he returned to filming.82.47.191.23 (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it say 2011, 2012 if that's what happened. Why is it better when it is not recording the truth?92.232.245.253 (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#Cast years on soap lists for a current discussion that will affect all sosp opera articles on Wikipedia. –AnemoneProjectors– 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in that page about durations.92.232.245.253 (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The durations section has been vandalized again. It now looks a complete mess and is totally inaccurate. I tried correcting it and was told that I was "disruptive editing".82.47.191.23 (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks fine. Like it says above, "if someone left in 2011 and returned in 2012, it's better that the duration reads 2011– rather than 2011, 2012" which is how it should be. ThisIsDanny (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

How and why is it better to display inaccurate information?82.47.191.23 (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not inaccurate information, it shows the character appeared in each year from the ones stated. For example, if the character made 1 appearance every year why would you put "2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014" You'd simply put "2004–" especially since Coronation Street doesn't have a recurring section. Whereas in EastEnders Aunt Sal for example appears around once a year, so her duration is "1996–98, 2001–04, 2007–11, 2013–" It just makes a lot more sense than listing them all individually. ThisIsDanny (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

carla and peter

under the departing characters Carla and Peter are listed and yet this is true it is only a break so could you reassure people by adding that this is only a temporary departure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.88.143 (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Where a character changes name?

Can the character's page be renamed to match up correctly? There are too many notes in the editing list to say 'don't change etc' but there are ways to do it. --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Most surnames aren't changed when a character marries due to WP:COMMONNAME. If we're talking about Rita, than she has been known as Sullivan a lot longer than Tanner. Google hits give me more results for "Rita Sullivan Coronation Street" (107,000 results), than "Rita Tanner Coronation Street" (45,000 results) at the moment. - JuneGloom Talk 16:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah dont go there gavin mate, I have and well... although i agree totally with you, its easier not to ask logical questions on wikipedia cause although they may seem sensible, to the wikipedians it isnt lol! I learnt that the hard way. ;) JMRH6 (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

JMRH6 - it is not fair to criticise those who understand simple guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME. As we are not Corriepedia, we do not adhere to changes at Coronation Street.Rain the 1 23:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

im not interested in all that WP:stuff and guidelines, cause in the real world that means nothing... unlike the information that can be provided. Im afraid some people are sucked into wikipedia and forget the real world sometimes... thats not a criticism aimed at you rain as you do fantastic work here but some people just take it far too seriously JMRH6 (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Lewis Archer

I thought it has been said he is leaving as he will be killed off this year... why is this not on the list? As im sure it has been published in a TV mag or on digital spy...? JMRH6 (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 July 2012

Please could you make edits to the durations for Peter Barlow, Carla Connor, Leanne Battersby and Lloyd Mullaney as they look quite messy. Peter has not left the show permanently, Leanne and Carla's maternity leaves were both within 2009 and Lloyd left at the end of last year and returned this year.

82.47.191.23 (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Floating Boat (the editor formerly known as AndieM) 06:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potts?

Who is he and if he is a previous character could the name be wikilinked to his name in the character years section. I have never heard of this character, can somone enlighten me to who he is/was? Thanks JMRH6 (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

According to IMDb, Councillor Harold Potts appeared from 1992 to 1993. He's not in any list or article at present. He's wikilinked in List of past Coronation Street characters as Harold Potts. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Added to the 1992 list. - JuneGloom Talk 18:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Well done. I made Harold Potts a redirect but not Harry Potts (Coronation Street). –AnemoneProjectors– 19:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Lloyd

Why does the note for Lloyd say his absence for most of 2012 was just a break and it's not counted against the duration, whereas his previous suspension, when he was still under contract, is counted? Each were the same length, and we know the contract wasn't severed the first time as he was suspended. He could easily have been off-contract the second time for all we know. This is the problem with using contract status as a guide for duration, rather than sticking to the facts (that he wasn't present during either period). It's all assumption and reading between the lines. --95.149.146.21 (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Tina McIntyre exit

Although all the previous sources suggested that Tina will be leaving in May/Spring 2014, http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s3/coronation-street/news/a537663/mark-wright-on-fiancee-michelle-keegans-corrie-exit-its-the-way-to-do-it.html < this source suggests she's being killed off in the New Year. It's from Digital Spy so we know it's trustworthy, but I still don't believe it's happening that soon as there's been no mention about it in upcoming spoilers. Should we change to "2014" or "January 2014" instead or just leave it the way it is? ThisIsDanny (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

When they say "in the New Year", they could just mean "next year" rather than specifically "in January". The link in that article leads to another article that states May 2014. –AnemoneProjectors– 11:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay, I realised after I did this that the other article said May. I was a little confused, thanks for clearing it up :) ThisIsDanny (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Webster

Kevin Webster is in the departing characters section as he is leaving again in April. Yes this is only temporarily, we already know that. We don't know how long for though. All the sources say he'll be back as quickly as possible once he's recovered. He might be off screens until next year, you just don't know. But because he's in departing, he'll be removed from present when he leaves so it needs to say 1983–2014. He'll be added straight back into returning though but without a known date. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I presume he will be away for at least six months as this is how long a thorough rehab programme takes. If he's back before six months then you can be sure he hasn't been through the proper therapy. Ex-addict talking from experience here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.101.57 (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Departed Characters

Hasnt Marcus and Dennis already left? JMRH6 (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No. ThisIsDanny (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael Rodwell

This is just to let you know that I have readded Les Dennis and put him in the returning cast section with two valid sources as he is only on a break and returning next month. Someone has already reverted my edit, but I put it back as there is no explanation why it shoul not be mentioned on the page. I did add 2 sources. Is there a problem?? Thanks184.160.203.195 (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)samusek2

If he's only on a break then he should still be in present cast. Kevin is also on a break and Ken hasn't been on screens since last year but he's still part of the cast so should stay in present. ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Character names

Just because a character gets married their name DOES NOT change in this article. This has never been the case which is why a lot of characters still have their name which they joined the show in or the name which they're most commonly known as such as "Fiz" instead of "Fiona". It's not just the case for Coronation Street, but for all of the other soap characters lists. So I have reverted any edits of people changing these. In the comments it says the link must match the article, so an editor has then changed the name of the article which is completely wrong and again, shouldn't be done just because the character has got married. It needs to be the character's proper name. Plus, Rita isn't with Dennis Tanner anymore, Leanne isn't with Nick anymore, and Carla isn't with Peter Barlow, and Joe McIntyre and John Stape are both dead. All I've done is revert people's ridiculous edits. Even if you put Carla Connor|Carla Barlow in the list I'll be happy with that compromise, just don't change the article name! ThisIsDanny (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Whether characters are still together or if their spouses are still alive is irrelevant - the name itself is what counts. Carla immediately stopped using the surname Barlow when she and Pter separated, so of course she should be referred to here as Carla Connor. However, Joe McIntyre being dead is meaningless in terms of how it affects Gail's surname - she is credited on-screen as Gail McIntyre and referred to in the script as such (she introduced herself as Mrs McIntyre in Friday's episode). As for your argument re: Rita, the husband who gave her the surname Sullivan has been dead for over 22 years - on the basis of your argument we should be calling her Rita Littlewood! Smurfmeister (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Adrian Atkins/Mortimer

I notice that on this page the character Eileen is dating is called Adrian Mortimer. But in the Radio Times he is credited as "Adrian Atkins". Which name is correct?80.189.193.196 (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the credits at the end of the episode he's credited as Adrian Mortimer. I think that's more reliable than the Radio Times. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Howie

A full 13 months on from the announcement of this new character and he still hasn't appeared. How long do we leave the info in the article before assuming plans have changed......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

He still appears in Digital Spy's joiners/movers/leavers list which was updated at the end of May. We'll have to see what happens when it's next updated. To be honest I don't think he'll appear, but if the source says he will we have to follow that. ThisIsDanny (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Absent "recurring" characters

Some of the characters in the recurring list haven't appeared for ages and there seems little indication that they will appear again. The Hodge family don't seem set for future appearances, and Macca hasn't been seen for months, even in scenes focussed on Callum's shenanigans down the Dog and Gun. On this basis I took Macca off the list, but another editor immediately put him back on...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Recurring characters always have a 1 year rule. ThisIsDanny (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing this informal "rule" was borrowed from the EastEnders project, where we tend to wait a year to see if a character is going to appear again, and then remove them from the list if they don't. In some cases, they are removed sooner, like if the storyline they were involved in is over. I just wanted to clarify that. –AnemoneProjectors– 21:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I think with Gemma regularly appearing, there's still a chance Macca could appear so it would be wrong to leave him out completely. And why remove the Hodge family? It was just last week when they were mentioned when Anna and Tim had access to Miley. It doesn't mean they won't still appear. ThisIsDanny (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree about both. –AnemoneProjectors– 10:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I wasn't aware that a recurring character had to be absent for an entire year before we concluded that they weren't going to appear again. That appears a tad on the generous side IMO...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't know how significant it's deemed, but on Gareth Berliner's website it says "Last year I made my TV debut in Coronation Street playing Macca and have done 9 episodes after being bought in initially for 2"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: The 1-year rule was brought in for EastEnders characters, so I guess it's been adopted here too. I don't think anyone suggested it should be less than a year. –AnemoneProjectors– 21:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I respect the consensus, it just seems a tad generous to me. In my experience recurring characters don't generally disappear from screen for eight or nine months and then pop up again. But, as I said, I respect the consensus -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Macca was also mentioned during last nights episodes. ThisIsDanny (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Previews for next week say that Tim and Anna find out that the Hodges have emigrated, so it would seem that's them gone...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

With Callum's death can it be assumed Macca is gone? Personally I'd say six months is fairer to assume they aren't going to appear again and it has been just about six months. It seems misleading for him to be left on the list. Also, what officially makes a character recurring in the first place? Most episodes have "guest" appearances such as police officers, doctors, family members, etc, who only appear for a few episodes. There seems to be no firm distinction. 2A02:C7D:5B78:4300:D09C:FD4:ED5E:1BDC (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Surely if Macca is to remain on the list then all the Underworld clients whose names are credited should also be added until they stay off-screen for one year? Like Dave Hanlon for instance, you could argue that he is recurring (See Corriepedia if you don't know who he is). And Helen and Barry Connor are definitely recurring and were in it this year! My point is that the decision to keep Macca on the list for a year, or even for him to be there in the first place, is completely arbitrary. 2A02:C7D:5B78:4300:D0E5:6A23:5FDF:41E2 (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it seems ridiculous to have him on there. By the same logic, Dan Jones should still be on there because we don't 100% know that he won't re-appear, as should Dr Gaddass from the medical centre who has appeared in more episodes than Macca and appeared more recently (August). Macca hasn't appeared for six months and Gareth Berliner's official website says "Last year I made my TV debut in Coronation Street playing Macca and have done 9 episodes after being bought in initially for 2", which matches the number of episodes the character appeared in. All signs point to him not appearing again, yet he has to stay on the list till next April?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

To add, according to his spotlight CV http://www.spotlight.com/9495-1273-6197 Gareth Berliner is appearing in Doctor Who, implying he has moved on from the role of Macca. 2A02:C7D:5B78:4300:5C3B:9F73:AA67:FE79 (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

So remove Macca. You're allowed to use common sense. If the storyline is over and it's unlikely that character is still recurring, then they can be removed. –AnemoneProjectors– 08:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

He's been removed several times, but another editor keeps putting him back in and has even gone so far as to add a hidden note saying he mustn't be removed...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed him, and will try to keep an eye on the article a bit more closely than I have been. Also I noticed that User:ThisIsDanny restored Macca recently, so this will bring that user's attention back to this discussion. –AnemoneProjectors– 09:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

After reading this it's probably okay to remove Macca, but Marion has also been removed a few times too when she will be appearing over the coming weeks. ThisIsDanny (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Names of People

Sorry to bring this up as I can see it's been debated previously, but two issues here - Fiz has been credited as 'Fiz Stape' since November 2009, 6 six years now and hasn't been changed? This needs changing. 'Fiz Brown' she hasn't been for years! (worth remembering that Jennie's Character has been Fiz Stape longer than Helen Worth has been known as 'Gail McIntrye') I get the whole, most common name rule, but I think Fiz is a character most people just know as Fiz (nor Brown or Stape) so let's atleast use the name she been credited as since 2009! Also, it should now be Beth Sutherland, Lisa George has been credited that way for the last few months, there no suggestion that she and Kirk will seperate so she should be 'Beth Sutherland'. Mintyfresh2012 (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Beth Sutherland is not her most common name, so no it shouldn't be changed. Probably worth mentioning on the actual talk page for Fiz to see if it's worth changing. Nothing can be done about it on here. ThisIsDanny (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I can understand that the article should be under the COMMONNAME, but is there any reason why the current name shouldn't be used within this article? There's no rule that says the two must match that I'm aware of..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Former actors listed with characters

Sorry, but to me listing former actors alongside current characters is incredibly confusing. I looked at the David platt part and apparently he was only on the show until 2000. I know that's not correct, but it gives it that appearance. Former actors should be removed from the list, leaving only the current actors. Rusted AutoParts 19:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, now it looks like Shepherd has played David since 1990, but that's not true. The EastEnders list includes all actors for this reason. It's a list of characters, so all actors should be listed. If it was a list of cast, then it would be different. anemoneprojectors 17:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

...It's saying David Platt, not Shepherd, has been on since 1990. Rusted AutoParts 16:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

But it looks like only one actor has ever had that role, which is false. Past ators should be included, as it is a list of current characters, not a list of current actors. anemoneprojectors 16:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Rubbish. I'm sure people are able to differentiate. Adding prior actors is confusing and cluttery. Besides, I added the word character to the duration section so it shows this is how long the character has been on for. Rusted AutoParts 19:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

How are they going to differentiate? Differentiate between what exactly? The duration is the character duration. But all actors portraying the charcter should be included. It has nothing to do with duration. anemoneprojectors 21:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. Adding in old actors would be confusing. Rusted AutoParts 22:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Can't see how it's confusing, I think not adding in other actors is misleading. Therefore, we need input from more people. anemoneprojectors 19:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It would be completely misleading not to add all actors who've played the role. Also 'cluttery' is not a word. Smurfmeister (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

They're included on other soap pages, so why not this one? Although in all fairness it does say "current actor", so I wouldn't say it's misleading. But it would make sense to include them all. ThisIsDanny (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Changes to uncredited (child) actors

Is there any merit to adding an "as of" date where we have a source for the name of an uncredited (child) actor? For example, we have a source giving the name of the girl(s) playing Lily Platt, but the source is nearly 18 months old and it is quite clear from watching the show that the girl(s) playing the part has/have changed since then. As it stands the article gives the impression that the girls mentioned in March 2015 are still playing the role when they clearly aren't...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you make a good point. Do we know when the new Lily Platt appeared? anemoneprojectors 09:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

June of this year according to this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The current Wiki entry for Lily says she's played by Brooke, but it's unsourced. I think using "as of" for uncredited child actors is a really good idea. anemoneprojectors 14:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Or even just get rid of the names altogether. For all other characters we only list the current actor, no matter how many others have played the role in the past. Yet for these parts we are listing kids who it's possible (and in at least one case 100% certain) don't play the part any more -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion about listing all actors is in the section above this one. Obviously what happens with child actors should reflect what is decided there, so yes if past actors are going to be removed, the current actor should just be listed as unknown or uncredited. anemoneprojectors 09:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Andy and Steph

Please stop adding 2017 as an end date for Andy and Steph. We're still in 2016 - this is an 'ending' that hasn't happened yet. Also the source given for Oliver Farnworth's exit suggests it is temporary. Smurfmeister (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Whenever a character is leaving in any programme, not just Coronation Street, their duration is changed. For example see List of EastEnders characters and List of Emmerdale characters. And no where in the source does it suggest that the departure is temporary. ThisIsDanny (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

But 2017 hasn't happened yet. It's not possible for the characters to have left in 2017. Change it when it happens. Also, Steph's departure isn't confirmed - the link is to a Digital Spy article that repeats a report from The Sun, which isn't a reliable source. Smurfmeister (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

So is Steph not leaving then? Is the Sun wrong? Are any Sun sources unacceptable for this site?82.6.210.166 (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The Sun is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Even if it were, the article provides no confirmation from the actress or the show - it simply refers to 'insider claims'. Smurfmeister (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why it's not considered a reliable source - I've never had a problem with it. But "insider claims" aren't reliable enough, I agree with that. anemoneprojectors 11:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I personally don't have any issues with it either, but have been shot down for using it before. Smurfmeister (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

So I take it that we can't add Aidan as a "departing character" for the same reasons then?77.97.55.147 (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I added a source from the Sun on the EastEnders characters page for a new character and it was accepted on there.77.97.55.147 (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Dane and Macca

Asked here because it's more likely to get a response than on the individual "by year" pages. At one point, Macca was said (by Gemma, I believe) to be Clayton's half-brother, which would mean they shared one parent. On the basis of this, Dane has been listed since July as Macca's father at List of Coronation Street characters (2014). Now that Dane has actually appeared, it is blatantly obvious that he isn't old enough to be Macca's father (if anything he looks younger than him!), so presumably that one line has been forgotten about/retconned/chalked up as a character error. Do we still need to list the claim that they are father and son based on that one line of dialogue, even though it clearly seems to be untrue.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Shona has referred to Macca as Clayton's stepbrother. Smurfmeister (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Portrayers

How come the list of actors only includes the current actor? I've always wondered that as other soaps list every actor to portray a character. User321a (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I added every actor to portray a character, to try and help people know about all the actors that have played the characters. It then got reverted back to the current actor. Could someone please clarify why? Thanks. I was only honestly being helpful, and someone has undone my hard work. User321a (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

2018

Please stop adding 2018 as an end date for Anna, Aidan and Eva. This is a list of CURRENT CHARACTERS - 'current' means 'in the present', not the future. These characters are still on screen and, until they have left, their tenures should be listed as continuing. They are already listed in the Departing Characters section - that's the correct and only place to reference their exits. Smurfmeister (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

But we know these characters are leaving so what is the point of not acknowledging that they are leaving on the list? Surely it would be more accurate to have their end dates mentioned on the list. Also Todd is still listed as departing in 2017 so should he be changed as well? And the other soap character lists still have the departing characters end dates on them so why should Corrie be any different?77.97.55.147 (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with the ip that the for referenced exits that the dates can be listed in both the current and departing lists. Perhaps others can weigh in here and we can reach a consensus as this edit warring is disruptive to the pag history. Thanks. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I also agree, I don't see any issue with 2018 being mentioned in the present list. ThisIsDanny (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Because it isn't the present. The whole point of a Present Characters list is that it covers the PRESENT, not the future. There is already a Departing Characters section that covers when these characters will leave. Stating a character appeared until next year is factually inaccurate! Once they leave they are no longer Present Characters. Character exits are sometimes kept secret or brought forward to surprise viewers - What if one of the exits is actually happening on Christmas Day, for example? What on earth is the problem with simply listing the characters as current, but referencing that they are departing in the Departing Characters section (hence the name)? What possible value is here in having a future end date for a current character? Smurfmeister (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Have re-added the 2018 notation as this discussion (although limited participation) is to include it. I know this is not a !vote, but it is 3-1. This discussion has been open for more then two weeks (tho the fight was ongoing for longer on the article) and it would seem most here do not have an opinion one way or the other, but the four of us who did participate have expressed a clear consensus to have the departure included in the current character list. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

But what is the value to it? It makes the heading 'Present Characters' inaccurate, there's no way of knowing if the 2018 end date will actually happen (think of Mercedes McQueen's fake exit from Hollyoaks, or Andrew Whyment changing his mind about quitting Corrie), and all the necessary information is in Departing Characters anyway. I've yet to see one argument for why a FUTURE end date should be in a list of PRESENT characters. Smurfmeister (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Is the problem you have the use of the word "present"? We could change it to current. But at the minute, myself and others don't see an issue. ThisIsDanny (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Present, current; it all means the same - and all means now, not 2018. You keep saying you 'don't see an issue', but you still haven't stated what you feel the value of an end date is when this information is already covered under Departing Characters. Smurfmeister (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It's already covered, but having it in the current table is just an extra bit of information about the current cast. ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It isn't really 'extra' though is it? It's repetition.Smurfmeister (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Returns 2018

I reordered the list so that the return dates were in order, but when I added an edit summary, I mistyped the word returns and I didn't realize until I clicked save changes. I hope that's ok that I left this on the talk page. It was a genuine mistake. User talk:User321a User321a (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Pat Phelan

Why does Pat Phelan keep disappearing off the departures list? His departure has been confirmed by the media. It is puzzling me as to why. Could someone please explain? Thanks. User321a (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Various IP users keep removing - it is unclear why. Will request for another page semi-protection. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair I was removing them at first because a lot of the articles sourced said the character was finally getting his comeuppance, but didn't ACTUALLY say he way leaving - the leaving part was just "reported" which we don't go off. ThisIsDanny (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I just browsed the page's edit history, and the IP address 86.40.167.244, had made numerous disruptive edits regarding the Coronation Street cast list. I am becoming concerned about the edits, and I'm sure that you lot, if you are aware, are probably concerned aswell. I now believe it is time for admin intervention. User321a (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@User321a: As they have vandalised the page after receiving a final warning, consider reporting them to WP:AIV. - JuneGloom07 Talk 16:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I have reported them, but I don't know if I have done it right, as it is the first time I have ever done it. I did read through it, but didn't understand it. I understood where to make them, but I am worried that I may have done it wrong. Now I have reported them anyway, hopefully something will be done about their disruptive edits, as if the aforementioned IP user is having too much 'fun' making these edits, it is only likely to get worse. User321a (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit again, from the exact same user. It has been reported, but obviously, I don't want to keep reporting them, as I don't want to annoy the administrators. It is getting beyond a joke now. I am trying to be patient, but with edit summaries like "Kill you today", or "Funk kill you", it is coming along as a threat and disruptive edit. User321a (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2018

The link stating that Lewis Archer and Claudia Colby are returning needs to be properly formatted. 77.97.55.147 (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done I'm assuming you're talking about the formatting of the link and not the fact the two cells for each character are merged. As they share the same reference, this is fine — IVORK _Discuss 00:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes I did mean the link. The formatting is correct if they are returning together.77.97.55.147 (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2018

The link to the article about David Platt's one night stand, which contains the name of the actress that plays Emma, needs to be properly formatted. 77.97.55.147 (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks77.97.55.147 (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2018

The source that names Ryan Prescott as the new actor playing Ryan Connor needs to be correctly formatted. 77.97.55.147 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Fun fact, had you created an account to submit your first edit request on this page, you would have been WP:AUTOCONFIRMED and able to make the edits yourself by now, perhaps try it out? — IVORK _Discuss 21:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer but I'll leave it to the more experienced editors. It doesn't matter who does the editing so long as its done. I'm happy to just point things out that may need to be edited. 77.97.55.147 (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2018

The link mentioning Zeedan's departure needs to be properly formatted. 77.97.55.147 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Discuss 21:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks77.97.55.147 (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2018

The link to the source announcing Kim Vaughan's return needs to be properly formatted. 77.97.55.147 (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2018

Mike's surname is actually "Thornberry" not "Thornbury" according to the Radio Times and the programme's end credits. 77.97.55.147 (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The sources backtracked on the link article spell it was "Thornbury". Please provide other sources that spell it the way you suggest. -- Dane ^talk 23:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

So the Radio Times is not good enough a source? It spells his name like this in this week's issue and next weeks and the end credits are still calling the character that. What other sources should be used?77.97.55.147 (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

What sources are good enough or valid enough to prove that that is how his name is spelt? Are the Radio Times and the programmes' credits not good enough? Also the ITV website spelt his name like that when his casting was announced.77.97.55.147 (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Which sources can be used then?77.97.55.147 (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Are the Radio Times and the show's credits wrong then?77.97.55.147 (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

My guess is that Dane was looking for you to provide actual links to a source rather then just take your word they existed. Here are a couple from March 29, and from March 28. I will make the change; why not think about registering, it would make your life easier. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll try and find sources from Radio Times upcoming episodes next time. I was considering doing just that but you beat me to it.77.97.55.147 (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2018

The second source for Aidan from Metro describing his exit storyline and the third source for new character Emma Brooker from The Sun both need properly formatting. 77.97.55.147 (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Discuss 00:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2018

The link for the second source for Eva Price from the Manchester Evening News needs to be properly formatted. 77.97.55.147 (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Nick Tilsley

According to The Sun, Nick Tilsley is returning to the show in the summer. Here is the source. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.55.147 (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Should this source be added? Just want to double check.77.97.55.147 (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2018

Jim McDonald is returning to the show. Here are some sources to confirm this. [4] [5][6] 77.97.55.147 (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why two of the sources I added haven't hyperlinked.77.97.55.147 (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed them.77.97.55.147 (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done I've added the info with two of the sources (the Mirror isn't considered reliable, and three sources is overkill is this instance). Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 12:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Must remember that about the Mirror for the future then. Are all the tabloids considered unreliable sources on here?77.97.55.147 (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2018

The second source for Kayla needs properly formatting. 77.97.55.147 (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2018

The gap between the returning characters box and the link to the past characters page is rather large. Should it not be closed up? 77.97.55.147 (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: There's a hidden "Future characters" table there which explains that gap, In short it's more easier to leave it as it is, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

In case any new characters get added then? That makes sense.77.97.55.147 (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2018

According to Radio Times, Kayla's surname is Westbrook. The cast list calls her that and so does this article [7]. 77.97.55.147 (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done "Kayla Clifton coronation street" brings up no results whereas Westbrook does so changing, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It also called her Westbrook on the end credits as well. I hadn't watched the episode when I made the first post.77.97.55.147 (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2018

The third source for Aidan needs to be properly formatted. 77.97.55.147 (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done thanks, NiciVampireHeart 12:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Suzie Barlow

Shouldn't Suzie Barlow, Aidan and Eva's daughter who is being passed off as Peter and Toyah's be added to this list? She has now been born, has appeared onscreen and is technically a recurring character.77.97.55.147 (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2018

In the link to the Digital Spy source for Jim McDonald, there is a typing error regarding the name of the author. Her name is Susannah "Alexander" but it reads "Akexander". Can someone please correct it? 77.97.55.147 (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2018

Aidan's final scenes have now been aired. It has been confirmed that he will not be seen in Wednesday's episode even as a dead body. Can somebody take him off the list? 77.97.55.147 (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2018

Shouldn't Suzie Barlow, Aidan and Eva's daughter, be added to the recurring characters list? 77.97.55.147 (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)