Talk:List of Doctors characters/Archive 1

Mrs Tembe
The character is still cast as "Mrs Tembe", not Winifred so the entry should be Mrs Tembe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.80.211 (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Revamp
As you know the list was revamped, re-created and merged with the past list. It did look neater and better, but it did come with compaints. The list is back to what it was, however it would be better, in my opinion, if it was reverted. Maybe if we just have "green" for present characters and "white" for the rest? Or "green" for present characters, "blue" for original characters and "white" for the rest of past characters. I spent a lot of time doing the list, such as removing guest characters. I used the rule of 45 episodes or more, that is why some characters made the cut and others didnt. An example of the same usage is List of Shortland Street characters. — M.Mario  (T/C) 16:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your effort on this, which must have taken some time, but I am not very sure about this new format. It doesn't read very easily and is also not sortable to split between current and former characters. Whilst I appreciate the example of List of Shortland Street characters, there is another list in the old format, Current Shortland Street Characters, so that case runs both styles. As this could very much be a personal view of mine and not the consensus, as she has expressed an interest in this, I will drop JuneGloom07 a message and also try and get some more views from elsewhere. Adamiow (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is that Doctors is a really small soap opera, meaning that there isnt ging to be many main characetrs over 45 eps. I think the list is quite simple, green = present, white = former. — M.Mario  (T/C) 15:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but simple is not the word I would use for new layout. It's confusing and I think the colours are totally unnecessary. I believe the list would look better in the format used for other soap operas such as Coronation Street, Emmerdale or Home and Away. Making that kind of change without consensus wasn't right. Also, I think WP:BRD may have been ignored here. - JuneGloom    Talk  23:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the others on this one. This style and the use of colour coding are unnecessary and it is not simple way. As mentioned above, there is a simple formula - tried and tested. So I too would go with the style used in other lists; purely because it is hassle free and easy for anyone to update. I wonder why it says present as highlighted in green - looks more duck egg to me. Rain  the 1  14:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the information on the list is correct, however the presentation may not. I added al characters who appeared in more than 45 episodes, so we only had to create articles/list entries for the major characters (as they will hopefuly have sources). I have added references to List of Doctors characters (2000), and will be getting on to finishing that soon. I'll change the green colour, but I do still think that the past and present pages should be linked together, as Doctors is a small soap. — M.Mario  (T/C) 17:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As there appears to be a consensus on reverting to the old style, I have now done this and also removed the redirect for the past characters page. Adamiow (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * But by doing so, you have got rid of my work! Lynette Driver has gone, and you could have copied the past characters on this page to the main one! There are loads missing. — M.Mario  (T/C) 11:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed your finished version of this page and the past characters page, my only query is the sorting by alphabetical order. It is common across character listings to have them sorted by first appearance. Any views from other editors on this? Thanks. Adamiow (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The alphabetical order was purposly made by me, as then you dont hve the argument of "who appeared first", for example seven characters were introduced in the first episode, as were many other characters who appeared on the same day, the list is sortable, which means the reader can see who appeared first. — M.Mario  (T/C) 14:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Alphabetical vs first appearance
M.Mario stated in an edit summary that this list must be in alphabetical order to comply with past characters list. Was this something agreed on by other editors during a discussion somewhere? Soap opera cast lists tend to have their characters in order of first appearance. Another editor did change this list to fit in with that layout, but Mario has reverted this twice now. I do think the odd order of the durations can be confusing for a reader seeing this list for the first time and propose the characters are placed in order of first appearance. - JuneGloom    Talk  00:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't miss the discussion on this. This is the last remnant of M.Mario's revamp, which was reverted after the consensus was against it. As the table was back to a decent state, I let the alphabetical ordering go, but as it has been raised, I am against it and believe that first appearance ordering is easier to run and read. Hope this helps. Adamiow (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The main reason the table is in alphabetical is to make it easier for me. For example, as I do not watch Doctors, I found it hard to know how "appeared first". 4 characters appeared appered first in the first episode, meaning who would be listed first? I just didnt want this horrible task of finding out who appeared first. The thing is like above we discussed this, but it was just too much effort to go through with it. Whilst were here, I hate the new table format, much prefer the 'past characters' list, look neater. Also, I did put in the lead of the present characters that this list is in alphabetical, however June reverted, most likely by mistake, hope this helps?. — M.Mario  (T/C) 17:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I have previously expressed, I believe the first appearance ordering is easier. Whilst I can appreciate your concerns in reference to appearance, this is an issue for the past characters page rather than this one, so it would be good if this reverted to first appearance. However, another point from me is the recent introduction to the page of upcoming recurring characters, for example Kingsley Apollo. I would much prefer to see the cast split with a recurring/guest character section to distinguish more clearly between those in regularly and not. What does everyone else think? Adamiow (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So you changed a list for your own needs? Because it makes it easier for you? How about doing a little researching and learning which character appeared first. You cannot keep changing things to suit yourself and disregarding everyone else. I think order of appearance was fine. Rain  the 1  18:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally dislike June's changes to this page, preffering the past list much more. However, after Adamiow's comments, I do agree and feel the page shoudl be listed in first appearance, however I shall not do it, as I may "keep changing things to suit yourself and disregarding everyone else". The past list fills the whole page, and just looks neater, but that is my opinion. However, although I do agree with Adamiow's comments, I dislike the recurring/guest section be re-introduced.

Just by looking at this, it does look a little bit 'empty'. And "upcoming recurring characters" are not that recurring, as most of the upcoming characters are regular, so I disagree to this. I will however fight that the page be returned to the way the past list is, it looks so much better! I hope this makes sense so; I agree to first appearance, I disgaree to recurring/guest section, as well as chaged to table format. — M.Mario  (T/C) 20:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am pleased that you support the move back to alphabetical. On the other points, the recurring characters table are generally going to be small, especially for a show like Doctors that had a small cast anyway. I do feel that the differentiation between regular and guest/recurring is needed, especially if characters such as Kingsley are included, who are more guest than recurring and have a minimal impact on the show. Personally, I would classify the likes of Barry and Brian as recurring and perhaps returning guests such as Jed, whereas Kingsley and other are guests. Finally, on the format, I am a little puzzled, as to me, other than some differing styling, the present and past lists seem the same and also, as far as I am aware after checking a few old versions, June hasn't made any changes to the table. Lets see what others think. Adamiow (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Any other views on this? I was also disappointed to see that the return of the recurring section has been short-lived and reverted by M.Mario. There was a justification in reference to original research, but can you shed any light on this Mario? Thanks. Adamiow (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Aah, sorry. Talk:List of Coronation Street characters. — M.Mario  (T/C) 21:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that discussion applies to the Coronation Street list, which had issues. It may be easier to identify recurring and guest characters with Doctors, has that been checked? Regarding the other discussion, all I did was update the table formats for accessibility, rewrote the lead (a list shouldn't start with "The following is a list...") and changed the emdashes to endashes. I was quite surprised by "The main reason the table is in alphabetical is to make it easier for me", but if the list is in order of first appearance than a simple sentence in the lead clears up any confusion. - JuneGloom    Talk  23:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do apologise for that comment. :D — M.Mario  (T/C) 15:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Alphabetical, Recurring and Guests Characters
Further to the previous discussion, I do feel that the alphabetical vs first appearance order issue and the status of recurring and guest characters needs to be discussed properly. On the alphabetical vs first appearance, I do not believe that it will be much work to identify who appeared first and I am happy to do this. Going forward, as the article is active, this should not be an issue.

For the recurring and guests, I am concerned that they are being given undue prominence across the different Doctors pages. As already discussed, the status of a character as recurring and guest is quite easy to ascertain compared to other soaps. Therefore, I believe a split would be easy and beneficial. Brian, Barry and Jed are all clearly recurring. Whilst not relevant yet, of the upcoming characters, Driver will be recurring again and Franklyn looks to be recurring, Valerie is most likely recurring unless she appears in the titles and Chris is a regular. The rest are guests.

Equally, I am concerned with adding Carl and Lindsay to the template, as it doesn't seem appropriate for such minor characters to be put in it, otherwise at this rate, it will be the size of a house!

I would appreciate the views of other users on this. Thanks. Adamiow (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Carl and Lindsay are on the template as they have got sections on the 2013 list. We do it on EastEnders articles, such as characters like John Hewland, etc. — M.Mario  (T/C) 19:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On the EastEnders template, it is very different, as the characters are added to the Present and Future and then moved to the Past. On the Doctors template, it is past and present, with only the regular cast and significant recurring characters. Unless, the whole template is redone to include all of the past recurring characters that are not significant, they do not appear to meet the criteria. What are your thoughts on the other points? Adamiow (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just put them on there as they are present characters which have a part on the list. The template should not be changed. I prefer to keep the tables the same, like I said in the above discussion. I think the table should be put back to what the past list is like, but maybe just put in alphabetical order? — M.Mario  (T/C) 21:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Moving To First Appearance Date
I have been wondering if it would be beneficial to change the first appearance from year to date. Whilst manageable, due to the nature of the show, the recurring characters are difficult to sort, which is most difficult when a former recurring returns. It would seem that moving to first appearance date would make this a lot easier, especially when inserting characters back in. I am happy to do the work for this. What do you think? Adamiow (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Any views on this? I have done the present cast on my sandbox if you are interested. Adamiow (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Future characters
Isn't the 'future characters' section only used for upcoming regular characters and not for upcoming guest stars e.g. Will Thorp and Lucy Speed? Boushenheiser (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is used for regular, recurring and notable guest characters. Adamiow (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Character roles
Why do the characters' jobs need to be mentioned. I don't see how it is relevant. Doctors is classed as a soap opera not a medical drama. You don't see the jobs of characters in Coronation Street, Emmerdale, EastEnders or Hollyoaks next to each character.82.47.191.23 (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Nina Bulsara
Nina is currently credited as a recurring character in episodes currently airing, so she is placed with the recurring characters here too. She has been placed into the BBC's promotional image for Doctors which is basically unheard of for recurring roles, but this does not negate from the actual episodes crediting her as a recurring character. What is the general consensus on Nina's placing? – Meena • 10:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey! I would suggest keeping her on recurring at the moment as the show is the main source and they haven't explicitly said that she is a regular (A Main character isn't *necessarily always* a regular) so I think she should stay in recurring at the moment – if she is a regular it will become obvious in a few months and she can be moved then, rather than potentially incorrectly moving her now 😊 DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed - leave her as recurring for now. Given the promotional image, I expect she is in for the long haul but there must be a reason why she isn't a regular cast member. Perhaps she has other commitments to fulfil before joining full time, she is going to be permanent but recurring cast or given that there has been lots of cast turnover at the moment and more to come, they may be waiting until a further departure to promote her. Adamiow (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your comments. I don't expect we shall hear much more on the subject due to the lack of activity on Doctors wiki, so I'm happy to wrap it up here and keep Nina in the recurring section as planned. – Meena • 12:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In this afternoon's episode, Nina was in the titles and was credited alongside the main cast, so I have moved her accordingly. – Meena • 15:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Ruhma Carter
Any thoughts on what to do with Ruhma Carter? Today's episode was a bit unclear if Bharti has left or on extended leave. Before today, she has been off air for a month and the replacement midwife is on air until June. Bharti may of course return after then or a permanent replacement may be cast. Adamiow (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe she has had a break. I'm aware that she was on set 2 weeks ago (and they are currently filming Oct–Nov scenes) so she will probably return onscreen in June? Her IMDb states that she is in an upcoming project so perhaps she took a break to film that, like Ross McLaren did with his musical? A source citing her break would be great for her individual article but with other soaps, characters still stay on the list if they're on an extended/maternity break. – Meena • 18:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the update. I couldn't find anything on her being on set, as I don't think she is on social media. I'll leave her as is. Adamiow (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm on a few Doctors groups and someone who lives in Brum met her on the set last week. Hardly a WP:RS lol, but a good indication she is filming. – Meena • 19:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Merge from List of former Doctors characters
It's pointless to split lists of characters from a show into current and former. Eventually the show will finish and the merge will be needed. Right now the split doesn't add any value. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC) PS. See also currently ongoing Articles for deletion/List of former Hollyoaks characters which inspired me to start this merge and identical merge proposals at Talk:List_of_Emmerdale_characters, Talk:List_of_EastEnders_characters,  Talk:List_of_Coronation_Street_characters, Talk:List_of_Home_and_Away_characters and Talk:List_of_Neighbours_characters.
 * Oppose why is it "pointless", is this is your personal opinion? As a soap editor, it provides readers with a differentiation between current and former characters. Due to the size of the former list, a merge would put WP:UNDUE weight. – Meena • 10:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong opppose – it is not pointless. It is important as it ensures that readers are aware between the difference between current and former characters. This is a soap opera with a big cast. Both pages are fully sourced. I disagree that it means that there is a lot of work for editors – it is not, as we are constantly updating character pages etc and we also move characters when they debut, leave, return, are upgraded to regular or recast. Usually when a character leaves an experienced editor (usually on this page as he is extremely efficient) or IP moves the character to the former list the minute the episode airs. Both pages are quite big and merging them would cause the page to be too long and possibly tagged with a *too long* template, let alone it making it even harder to navigate. WP:Wikipedia is not paper – two pages (one of former and one for present) is not an issue at all and makes it easier to navigate. Also, that policy, along with Article size, explains how it is important to not make pages too long and too big as it affects download times and creates other issues and suggests that long tables are split off into stand alone pages. The former and present character lists have been used for decades by the soap community through excessive consensus (as I have seen through looking at a lot of the revision history etc from years ago) and this has worked well for years and never caused an issue, so I am very surprised that it has been brought up now.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I disagree with the proposal, as I don't see any benefit. The two pages work fine separately and merging would make the article very long. They are well updated and characters moved over when appropriate with further sorting on the past page. Even if they were merged, the content would still be split as it is now. Adamiow (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Cancellation Changes
I just wanted to comment that as the show still has over a year left on air and probably around 150 to 200 episodes, it seems a bit premature to make drastic changes to the article. There will be plenty of changes during this time with character departures and arrivals, so I do feel it should be business as usual for a good while longer rather than considering the programme virtually over already. Adamiow (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I never wanted the former list to be merged into this one (as you can see that in the above discussion) but it will happen when the show ends, so I got a headstart and got it sorted. It does mean editing 1 page instead of 2 when characters leave, so there is a benefit. In regards to me moving people to the departing section, that's unfortunately what they are. It's sad and it's cruel and I wish it wasn't happening as I will have no purpose on Wikipedia soon, but it's what they are. Also, F the BBC folks! – Meena • 17:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)