Talk:Leanne Battersby

Fair use rationale for Image:Leanne Battersby CS 2007.jpg
Image:Leanne Battersby CS 2007.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Duration
Shouldnt Leanne's duration be 1997-2000, 2004-.... not 1997-2000, 20004-2006, 2007-? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.152.246 (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Family — To Step or Not to Step?
I re-input Leanne's extended family for two reasons: (1) to eliminate them only because they are “step” family members suggests the editor who deleted comes from that rare beast, a nuclear family, and cannot fathom how one might consider one's step-family members as family; and (2) just because her storyline does not currently have her involved with any of them does not change the facts of Leanne's life, current or past. SpikeToronto (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm following a legend of friend of mine here. Trampikey by not couting stepfamily or in-laws in British soap characters articles. He started with EastEnders and Emmerdale, and I gradually followed suit on All of the other main british soaps; However, I'm not above listing stepfamily information in Australian soap articles. Conquistador2k600:27 21 January 2008  (UTC)

I’m all for following models to maintain some consistency across articles for soap opera characters. In fact, in a recent debate, re: deletion of the Roy Cropper article, a wikipedian pointed to the wikiarticle on Pauline Fowler as a good example for us to follow. That being said, there’s following models … and then there’s being slavish about it. If there is a good reason to list “step” family members in Australian (and American) soaps, then why would the same logic not apply to British soaps? Other than following a model that might have that as its one flaw, what reason could there be to suspend that logic vis-à-vis soaps from the U.K.? I think that if a character considers, or has in the past considered, another character as family, such persons should be so listed. Also, it helps new viewers of the soap to better orient themselves as to the familial relationships, consanguineous and otherwise, of the characters whom they are watching. SpikeToronto (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolute no-brainer to include Toyah and Janice. They have always been shown as two of Leanne's closest family members. Smurfmeister (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Subheadings
Subheadings make this article much easier to navigate. A reader need only click on the section s/he is interested in from the table of contents and be directed straight to it. Moreover, the Wikipedia Manual of Style reminds us that once a subheading is created, elsewhere on Wikipedia, other wikiauthors create wikilinks to it. To unilaterally remove a subheading — or to alter a subheading — is to break those links. See also: Section Headings. Nonetheless, even if one could remove them, the article is much easier to navigate with them left in place. SpikeToronto (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The use of subheadings in this article is absolutely and completely excessive. The contents of each subheading is stubby, unreferenced, and in direct violation of WP:PLOT. Summary of the character's storylines should be brief, and not take precedence over real world information, which this article is entirely lacking. One or two subheadings might be acceptable, 19 is absolutely not. Frickative (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Incredible acting!!
I used to hate this character, but I have to say, for the last few years the performances have been making me sit up on the edge of my seat. The actress who plays her is the most believable and impressive actress on TV today www.buchangrant.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.223.115 (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Davina?
"Stepmother: Davina Battersby (1980-1990)" - sounds like something someone just made up, can anyone confirm.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Change Title of Page to 'Leanne Barlow'?
I think as she's been credited as 'Leanne Barlow' for quite some time, it makes a lot more sense to have the actual page with that title as opposed to her maiden name. Anybody else agree with me? 82.8.28.96 (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Leanne Battersby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120814081331/http://www.itv.com:80/coronationstreet/characters/leannebattersby/ to http://www.itv.com/coronationstreet/characters/leannebattersby/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Leanne Battersby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140714215906/http://programmes.stv.tv/coronation-street/news/122604-jane-danson-excited-over-ex-husbands-return-to-corrie/ to http://programmes.stv.tv/coronation-street/news/122604-jane-danson-excited-over-ex-husbands-return-to-corrie/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Plot section
This is a direct reply to a comment made in an edit summary from revision.

I believe the general reader will understand. I stated that Nick and Leanne were considering going into business together but it did not happen. This is a factual statement. Your version was also correct but you chose to log more character movement. The restaurant's location seems irrelevant because nothing came of it. Robert and Nick's feud is their storyline. Many characters play supporting roles in other stories. In another instance you added that Nick asked Leanne out for lunch and she said no. That is hardly worth inclusion here. Wikipedia is not some Corrie fansite. There is actually a set of rules on here regarding plot sections which may help give a better understanding: MOS:PLOT. WP:PLOTSUMNOT has a great line: "The point of a summary is not to reproduce the experience—it's to explain the story." Rain  the 1  22:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leanne Battersby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714215906/http://programmes.stv.tv/coronation-street/news/122604-jane-danson-excited-over-ex-husbands-return-to-corrie/ to http://programmes.stv.tv/coronation-street/news/122604-jane-danson-excited-over-ex-husbands-return-to-corrie/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)