Talk:List of Neighbours characters/Archive 2

Previous actors
All the previous actors were removed yesterday (11 Sep) without discussion first, so I'm opening one. Now I noticed that one of the reasons they were removed was due to the lead saying "The following is a list of characters and cast members who are currently appearing in the show...". Looking at List of EastEnders characters, which uses a similar layout, the lead mentions that the list includes previous actors, so maybe we could add that to the lead here? Or maybe the previous actors do need to go? I'm not really sure how I feel about that yet, so I'd be interested in hearing other opinions. - JuneGloom07    Talk  02:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My reasoning for why they need to go is simple. The page is separated from the 'past characters' to keep track of the show's cast in its current state. The actors that have previously played current characters are not part of the current cast. I think a note is needed for each below the list to state who played the character when, but to have them in the main list makes it look from an outsiders point of view that those characters are being played currently by multiple actors (even taking into account any changes to the lead - it still looks confusing). --2.126.245.157 (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your reasoning that they are not part of the shows current cast. This article is titled "List of Neighbours characters". They may not play the character currently, they still did and are still connected to each said character. JuneGloom07 suggestion of adding the note would avoid any confusion "from an outsiders point of view". Rain  the 1  14:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The title may say "List of Neighbours characters" but it doesn't contain all of the show's cast and characters, just those in the show today. The page is based primarily in the present, and as such previous actors are irrelevant. They are relevant to each individual character, and that is why they are listed in those character's pages, but they are not to Neighbours in 2015 and certainly not in a list of current characters. As it is, I don't see why there are two lists when the status of "past" and "present" seems to be blurred. --2.126.245.157 (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep. If the previous actors were removed and the years those actors were on remained in the table, then that would make non-fans think actors like Kip Gamblin and Kate Kendall were on the show during the 90s. AusSoaps (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh AusSoaps, that seems so obvious now but it never occurred to me! That is certainly why they need to remain. Like you say that would confuse the general reader a whole lot more. Rain  the 1  23:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop removing Bossy from the table
Can other users help explain to User:SDD17 that Bossy is a character. SDD17 keeps removing Bossy from the table because she thinks animals are not characters. I've tried explaining to SDD17 in edit summaries and on his/her talk page  but the user is still not listening. Unless this article is called "List of Neighbours human characters", Bossy should remain in the table. AusSoaps (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Tried. From an admin point of view I will keep an eye on this :)--5 albert square (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

We were given to understand that Malcolm Kennedy would return with his wife and baby. Will this happen? 58.110.104.29 (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Geoffrey Hilliard.

Character Tenures
Some people on here don't seem to understand character tenures....

For example: Lyn Scully was on the show as a REGULAR from 1999-2006. She returned in 2008 as a GUEST for several episodes. She then later returned in 2009 and was a REGULAR until 2011. And has now returned again. So her Tenure on her table should read 1999-2006, 2008, 2009-2011, 2016. To the general public the 2008-2011 suggest she was a regular for that time period which is incorrect and being Wikipedia - this is not a place to give false information which the current tenure for characters that where guest that became regulars or vice versa is portraying!

I have heard JuneGlooms "excuse" and it really does not make sense - if they were only on the show as a guest then that year should only be mentioned and if in the following year that said character returned as a regular that year should be represented and followed by a - B.Davis2003 (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus to change the date values. It is too much of an assumption to state "To the general public the 2008-2011 suggest she was a regular for that time period." Unless you conduct a survey with general readers asking for their thoughts, how can you know for sure? The dates appear ongoing because each calendar year the character appeared on Neighbours. A large majesty of WP:SOAPS editors accept this and acting against such consensus is considered disruptive editing. Rain  the 1  02:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Mark Brennan
Just trying to head off an edit war here, as this issue has come up before. It should have been brought here again first. Mark's appearances were less than a calendar year apart. Regardless of how he was credited (guest/recurring/regular), he still appeared in two consecutive years. This is not a Neighbours thing, this is how many of the soap operas are displaying duration information. There have been discussions at WP:SOAPS (and possibly Template talk:Infobox soap character) and I will try to find them in due course. - JuneGloom07    Talk  00:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Regular guests
Would it not be a good idea to place the one year rule on characters like Lou, Lucy, Lucas and Stonie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.203.107 (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Article requests
When will we see an article about Nene? I understand that a new character, Brodie Cheswick, will appear next week. Why is he not shown among the upcoming characters? 58.110.117.35 (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Geoffrey Hilliard.

There's still no article about Nene. Why? 58.110.106.241 (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Geoffrey Hilliard.

You've fallen behind on the others list again, those who conducted Madison's singing audition and the audition for Family Feud and now the balloon pilot.49.194.4.216 (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Geoffrey Hilliard

You've fallen behind on so many storylines. When will we see more updates? 49.194.133.178 (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Geoffrey Hilliard
 * There's absolutely nothing stopping you from updating storylines. In fact, I see you've done some already today. Although you need to update the storylines before the most recent episodes, if they have not already been done. Karl Kennedy is a good example . Surely there was something before the balloon crash? And, as I mentioned in my edit summary previously, Regan's surname is Davis. Please also take the time to add actor names too, thank you. - JuneGloom07    Talk  18:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

When will there be an article on Shane Rebecchi? 49.194.34.22 (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Geoffrey Hilliard.
 * When he becomes notable for one. A list for the 1994 characters is being worked on, and he will be included in that. - JuneGloom07    Talk  18:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The others list has fallen behind again. Please update it. 49.194.36.117 (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC) Geoffrey Hilliard
 * Why don't you have a go at updating it, instead of demanding that it be done? If you run into a problem, then ping me or post here. - JuneGloom07    Talk  00:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive edit
I have just fixed a disruptive edit made by an anonymous user. Would it be possible if we could apply for that user's IP address to be blocked from editing, as he/she had messed up the table, and also messed with the actors names e.g. "Olivia Junkie" and "Shazza Johal" rather than "Olivia Junkeer" and "Sharon Johal" respectively. I have only amended and tidied up a table which was tampered with. I know it is a big ask to request that the user's IP address gets blocked, but it was causing a disruption. It would be greatly appreciated if someone could get back to me. If you don't believe me, please look on the edit history. I have only mended a disruptive edit. I didn't notice that the anonymous user had messed with the actor's names until I submitted the first edit.

User talk:User321a 17:02, 13 February 2018. User321a (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've warned them, but they won't be blocked unless they continue to vandalise/make disruptive edits. - JuneGloom07 Talk  18:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Father Jack departure
Before I consider removing father jack's departure- has anyone actually got a source for this? The two sources are a bit vague- the 1st says Paige and Jack prepare to depart for Queenslands and the second one mentions Paige departure and not Jack. I cannot find any source online saying he is departing. Should this be removed unless a better source found? Rhysy54 (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition, the character page and the actor page has not been updated either. Just curious as to whether the sources are enough to go off to say he is departing or not. Rhysy54 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And another user has removed it based on the same criteria so guess this is closed. Rhysy54 (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I seem to be getting into an edit war over this. A certain user is adamant that jack and gabe are leaving same time as Paige but the sources say nothing of us... help lol Rhysy54 (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Another source confirming this has now been added. – JuneGloom07 Talk  00:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Children
I was wondering if children should be listed as regular characters as they don't appear often. Nell for example, although appears on the opening titles, she doesn't appear that often. I was wondering if we could come to some sort of agreement that children should be listed under the recurring characters list regardless of whether they appear on the opening titles or not. Obviously I won't press ahead with any changes until we can reach a consensus. User321a (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Neighbours has a long history of crediting children as regulars (see Jamie Clarke and Charlie Hoyland). It's only in recent years that they've chosen to include babies and some young children in the recurring/guest credits. I agree that characters like Gabe Smith should be included in the recurring section, but I think as Nell actually appears and is credited in the opening titles, she should stay where she is. - JuneGloom07 Talk  15:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok. It was just a thought. I obviously wouldn't continue without permission to do so. It was just an idea, as soaps quite often have children as recurring characters. User321a (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I was meant to ping you, but I forgot to add the username. I hope you know that I was replying to you. User321a (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding new regulars
Just to clarify my edit in adding Beatrix Nilsson to the list of regulars, as this is likely to affect other imminent incoming regulars. This character first appeared on the May 18 episode. We know that the actor has a two year contract, and even that she will be in the opening titles from May 21. While some characters (most recently Gary Canning) are upgraded to regular status after a period as recurring guests, and in some circumstances it may be unclear if a new character is a regular or not - in which instances their addition to the opening titles would be the appropriate time to move their classification - in cases such as Beatrix WP:COMMONSENSE should prevail, as having her listed as a recurring character for any amount of time is misleading. There's a strong precedent as well in the Tanaka twins, who were citeable regulars from their debuts in September 2016, but not added to the opening titles until January 2017. It's not the be all and end all. U-Mos (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree, but until the episode where Bea appears on the opening titles airs tomorrow, then she should remain on the recurring list. When tomorrow's episode has aired, then move her to the regular list. That is why the edit kept being reverted, because she is not a regular until she has appeared on the opening credits. I appreciate your help, like i assume other users do, but the episode where she appears on the titles MUST be aired before she gets moved to the regular characters list. Take Chloe Brennan for an example. She was originally on the recurring characters list until she appeared on the opening titles, she was then moved to the regular characters list. User321a (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The issue is this is an "it's just how we do things here" kind of argument, and I'm not seeing any logic to why that's the case. Again: Neighbours' opening titles are very useful, but they're not the one and only indicator of whether a cast member is a regular. Taking the Tanakas again, I've looked back in the history and seen that they were indeed listed as recurring characters between September 2016 and January 2017. This categorisation ignored verifiable sources, and was patently and consciously misleading for an entirely arbitrary reason. For four months! Over one episode as for Chloe and Bea, it's still knowingly listing incorrect information but at least it's only for a day or so - but let's flag up that Ned Willis is returning as a regular right now. Ned is back as a regular character from June 20, as cited there, so whether he is added to the opening titles on June 20, June 22, July 16 or September 3rd he should be listed as a regular character on this page from June 20 (following the airing of the episode on that day, of course). It's that simple. U-Mos (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Ned is a regular
The character's return is now imminent so time to restate the above, that Ned is a main cast member upon his return on June 20 - regardless of how long it may or may not take to add him into the opening titles. Further source If you disagree please outline the rationale for this to avoid any back-and-forth once the character is on-screen. 130.226.230.208 (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC) --- Apologies, this written by U-Mos - apparently not logged in on mobile app.
 * So, if it takes a weeks or months for him to be credited as a regular, he should still be added to the regulars table? Sorry, but no. What if his permanent contract doesn't kick in until the following month? If he's listed in the guest/recurring credits, that's where he should go until he is promoted to the opening credits. Moving a character straight to the regular table while it says something else on-screen seems kinda WP:CRYSTAL-y (and maybe WP:OR) to me. - JuneGloom07 Talk  15:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What is OR is assuming his "regular contract kicks in" at a later date, when there is a reliable source confirming he has re-joined in a regular capacity (it's not OR if it's sourced!). Agreed that sometimes it's unclear (Cassius is a current example of this), and in these cases recurring is the appropriate place until sources and/or the opening titles tell us otherwise. When it comes to Ned, it's not unclear, so the amount of time it may take to find space in the opening titles for him doesn't matter. We follow sources, assisted by the evidence of the episodes themselves where needed; the latter does not trump the former, particularly where there is a practical element to these on-screen listings. (As I mentioned above, the Tanaka brothers joined as regulars months before the re-creation of the opening titles allowed them to be included, and such a lengthy period of time of showing knowingly false information is not acceptable.) 86.188.117.29 (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Consistent application of guidelines
Another issue arisen regarding these lists under certain situations, which seems to be being handled in a certain for no reason other than an uncontested habit but actually runs contrary to WP:SOAPS guidelines. I've not managed to find anywhere where this is actually written down, but I know it's long standing consensus across soap articles to a) treat appearances as continuous if less than an entire calendar year passes between departure and re-introduction, and b) former regulars' classifications are never downgraded. Personally, I've never quite agreed with either of those (should we really be listing Clive Gibbons as a current regular??), but I recognise there's a community consensus there that would need a lot of challenging to overturn. So, taking those guidelines on board, there's clearly no choice in what to do with the forthcoming reappearances of Sindi and Lauren - bother former regulars returning after less than a year away (in fact, both appeared earlier in 2018). They must be current regulars. As sort-of-weird as that is, I don't see any alternative under the protocol of the soap guidelines. This is followed with recurring characters who have been off-screen for a shorter period of time too, and really has to be applied consistently or we're facing all sorts of WP:OR-territory distinctions. Of course, citations can and should be included where appropriate to show that a character's continuous stint has not concluded. If anyone has any good (i.e. policy, guideline, consensus or even logic-based) reason why this should not be the case, please mention it here. Otherwise, I'll go ahead and make the changes later in the week. U-Mos (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear (as it seems this has been confused), I am not saying that we should be keeping characters on the main cast list for up to a year after their final non-regular appearances in case they show up again. This can be appropriate at times for characters who have only ever been recurring, whose appearances may not be reported in the media/last appearances unsignalled. With the two characters here, we've got no reason to suggest they will appear again; if they do before the end of 2019, they can simply be re-added to the current regular cast as soon as this is known. One possible exception here is Hilary Robinson, a former regular who has featured very sporadically over the last few years but remains a local of sorts within the show's narrative. I'd say operating on the same principle as Sindi/Lauren here would be OK (i.e. only re-adding her to the cast list when we know she is appearing), but will happily go with consensus. (For now though, I will change her categorisation at Hilary Robinson as that currently disagrees with this page.) U-Mos (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Recurring characters
I am getting concerned about the constant removal and adding back of characters to the recurring character section. Why on this list have be got stuck in this constant cycle of removing characters if they do not appear for a couple of episodes? Recurring characters make sporadic appearances. Vera Punt is a good example, she is obviously living in the area as referenced on-screen and is always removed... then added back. She must have been swapped around atleast 10 times. Beverly Marshall has been on and off... Shaun has too. Why keep removing them?Rain the 1 22:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * When I started doing it, I only ever commented out those who had definitive on-screen exits until their next stint. Even when it's clear that a guest actor's role has finished, I often wait a week or so to be sure before removing them. But now it seems to have gotten a little out of hand. Characters are getting commented out or removed before their stints have finished (like Marty Muggleton the other day), because they haven't appeared in a week, or because editors think they're not going to appear again. Vera is a good example of this. There's also characters like Sandra Kriptic and Sgt. Lake, who are likely to appear because they're connected to regulars who work at the same places . I fully expect Prue to be hidden at some point just because her stint is split up. I guess this is partly my fault, but I'm not entirely sure how to stop this constant removing of characters. I notice it's usually an IP editor doing it, so is it the same person? - JuneGloom07 Talk  02:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we need to wait a little longer before we remove characters. We would need to decide how much time can pass before a character is removed. If the actor states they have left then remove straight away. It does appear to be IP edits going back and forth. I reckon that we should request page protection as it has been going on for some time.Rain <b style="color:green">the 1</b> 15:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Noticed Mrs Punt getting a name check today. ;) I was thinking of waiting for a period of three months? We definitely don't want characters like Liz or Fay, whose gaps between appearances can be longer, removed though. If it's the same person using different IPs, then a note on their talk page might be better. I'm not sure an admin will protect the page for this. - <b style="color: Purple; font-family: Arial;">JuneGloom07</b> Talk  20:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think three months seems a reasonable amount of time. If I notice it happening I will leave a talk page note and ask to discuss here.<b style="color:blue;font-family:Times New Roman">Rain</b> <b style="color:green">the 1</b> 12:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Characters were removed yesterday for not appearing in two weeks, including Marty Muggleton who was in episodes last week, while Mackenzie was commented out because she's not appearing again until the end of the month(?!). Two weeks is definitely not enough time to wait for recurring characters to appear again. - <b style="color: Purple; font-family: Arial;">JuneGloom07</b> Talk  17:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Two weeks is ridiculous especially since these characters keep appearing. It is worse when we know they are in upcoming episodes. Notifying : Do you think this list would benefit some form of semi-protection to help discourage the disruptive editing that has occurred for a long time? I started this discussion to see if the disruptive IPs would engage in some debate about whether there should be a set off-screen time for a character to be removed - but it has not worked.<b style="color:blue;font-family:Times New Roman">Rain</b> <b style="color:green">the 1</b> 14:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just adding that I did invite an IP editor to join in this discussion. - <b style="color: Purple; font-family: Arial;">JuneGloom07</b> Talk  00:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I dont understand why Ollie keeps being added back. He hasn't appeared in almost 2 months. And due to where the Mackenzie storyline is, I doubt he will make another appearance. AaronS567 (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * He is appearing in the upcoming spin-off, which also crosses over with the main show, so there's every chance he will appear again. If you read the above, you can see that we are discussing a three month rule, which would mean that he and other characters you have removed would be staying in the table until three months has passed. Not every recurring/guest character appears every week. - <b style="color: Purple; font-family: Arial;">JuneGloom07</b> Talk  22:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Mark's return
Worth discussing this, and also apologies to for any early-morning curtness on my part. My edits diff were to preserve the longstanding WP:SOAPS guidelines, which as I understand it are a) When a character returns without an entire calendar year's absence, it's considered a continuous appearance, and b) Regular characters are never downgraded. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with either of those, but I don't think we can ignore them without discussion. So Mark - returning in March after leaving this October - has to be a current (and departing) regular, unless we have a good consensus to act otherwise? Same thing as the section the section I wrote above last year - these guidelines become meaningless if we spontaneously ignore them at the first sign of awkwardness. U-Mos (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Mackenzie's status
Per my previous points made at Talk:List of Neighbours characters/Archive 2 - we don't ignore sourced information, which is entirely explicit that Mackenzie has returned in a regular role. This supersedes the fact that her addition to the title sequence is still pending. She is a current regular, as of her on-screen return on 4 February. The title sequence does not trump reliably sourced information. U-Mos (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This is the general rule of thumb though. I've noticed a few of your edits on this current cast as of late, and I must say, your edits are very strange and disrupt and go against the general page's work flow. A regular should only be added once they are credited in the opening titles. As you would notice, Georgie's current return still has her stated as a guest as per the shows closing credits. No matter what the source states, I don't see the need to jump the gun on this and put her on the table until it's been made official in the opening titles.


 * I also strongly disagree with adding Mark and Dee to the current cast when clearly they are not current cast. Please refrain from jumping in and adding them before they even return on screen. It is not general practice on the pages. B.Davis2003 (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "General practice" should be the long-standing consensus/guidelines around continuous appearances/classifications, though. That it's been done incorrectly a lot in the past is no reason to continue doing so. It should be noted that the list (and all soap classifications) is for regular characters, not Main cast - Mackenzie is not yet the latter, but we know for a (citable) fact that she was signed as a regular for the scenes currently airing. There's simply no reason to ignore that; maintaining a page in clear disagreement of sourced information is directly against the core policy of WP:VERIFY. For Mark and Dee, it's the same thing as Clive/Beverly being former regulars that aren't de-classified - that's the general work flow, and to change it would require a project consensus. U-Mos (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I was planning on leaving this, but here we go. Mackenzie is not currently a regular and should be moved back to the recurring table. Her character was still listed in the end credits along with other guest/recurring characters, and we can't really accuse the show of being behind with updating them, cause they've been removing departed characters the very next day. I think the crucial piece of evidence is the Herald Sun article in the list, which says that she returns to filming in January, so her scenes as a regular are likely to air around April. The appearance that aired recently was filmed last year when she was still a guest. - <b style="color: Purple; font-family: Arial;">JuneGloom07</b> Talk  00:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Mackenzie is still listed as a recurring character. I also noticed at the end of today's episode (8309) that it was filmed in 2019, so these aren't Stone's new scenes as a regular. - <b style="color: Purple; font-family: Arial;">JuneGloom07</b> Talk  17:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Mackenzie has not yet been credited as a regular character and is still appearing in guest role on-screen. When the episode airs it would make sense to only change it then. Even though it will not happen - If the show stopped airing tomorrow, Mackenzie would have never been a regular character but the actress would have been employed on a regular contract behind the scenes. This is a list of characters that adheres to character status. If like Mark and Jane, she returns after a departure then she would be listed in the regular section because there is consensus to do so.<b style="color:blue;font-family:Times New Roman">Rain</b> <b style="color:green">the 1</b> 21:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Fay should be on the list of departing characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.10.86 (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Current
Hey! I wanted to ask if it would be possible to change the Classifications from "Current" to "Present"? The MOS Soap character Infobox states that it should be "Past, Present or future" and the USA, UK and New Zealand soaps use "Present", so I thought it would be good to change the Home and Away & Neighbours articles too. I would change the articles, so please don't worry about the work! I just wanted to get your approval first 😊 DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe only Neighbours uses current and it was left over from when the list used to be called 'List of current Neighbours characters'. Changes have already begun being made, but since there's no hurry, I've been doing it when I edit the pages. - <b style="color: Purple; font-family: Arial;">JuneGloom07</b> Talk  01:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Table widths
Apparently they look funny on mobile, but the changes made them look weird on my PC screen (two different table widths). So, I'm wondering if we can come up with a compromise. Not being a regular mobile user, I haven't seen how bad it is, so I'll try and take a look. - <b style="color: Purple; font-family: Arial;">JuneGloom07</b> Talk  00:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Nicolette & Isla
Nicolette has been removed from the opening titles but isn't listed as a departing character, nor is her baby, which is to be named Isla, listed as an upcoming character. 27.33.23.138 (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Geoffrey Hilliard.


 * I will add Isla. Whether Nicolette is departing is unknown, though. There has been no confirmation of the actress, Charlotte Chimes, departing from the cast (please correct me if I'm wrong). Tim Kano, who plays Leo Tanaka, also stated that Neighbours purposely removed Nicolette from the titles, saying that it is an "interesting plot device" and that it is "interesting what they've done". - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Isla has been removed. Please let me know if there is another source. BTTB (if that is where you got your information) is a fan website technically. Thank you JuneGloom07 for letting me know. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * There's TV Week.27.33.23.138 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC) Geoffrey Hilliard.


 * I haven't been able to find any articles that state Isla's name though? Could you please link one? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Current situation
So you’ve all seen the situation going on and I’ve been warned for it. Lucy should be in the regular table because of the calendar appearance rule and Nicolette should also be there because we don’t downgrade characters. Thoughts? Opinions? sorry for the pings, just wanted your opinions. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nicolette should remain in regular characters because not only is the actress on a regular contract and the opening titles move is for storylines, regular characters do not get downgraded. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  16:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We never downgrade characters and removing Nicolette from the credits was just for the storyline. I think Lucy belongs in the returning table though.<b style="color:blue;font-family:Times New Roman">Rain</b> <b style="color:green">the 1</b> 19:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, she should remain in the regular characters list DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of following the wider protocol, not personal opinions. Both situations are clear: first, regular characters are never downgraded, so Nicolette can't be. I did feel her rather unique status change (noted by reliable sources) should be addressed, so added a line to Nicolette Stone yesterday. And of course that can be updated in the event that she is restored to the main cast later, or leaves permanently at the end of the current storyline. But it shouldn't impact this article. With Lucy, the protocol is also clear: she hasn't been absent for a calendar year (and again we don't downgrade), so the news of her return makes her a present regular immediately. Changing those things would require a much larger discussion, probably across multiple soap opera projects, to subvert longstanding precedents. I've restored the article to follow these, at least while this discussion takes place. U-Mos (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinions and thanks U-Mos for fixing the page. There’s one more issue. B.Davis2003 has placed a warn on my talk page for the edits I made, despite them being correct. What do I do about this? Sorry that this is kind of unrelated to the Neighbours page. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You can ignore it and remove it DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, will do. Thank you. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

New proposed change
Have we seen the last of Evelyn and Jesse? 60.242.233.162 (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC) Geoffrey Hilliard. I propose that under the Cast changes section, we separate the two current tables into three. One table would be 'Upcoming characters, one would be Returning characters and the final would be Departing characters (so basically just dividing the Upcoming and returning characters table). As a visual to see what it would look like:

Departing characters
- Therealscorp1an (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think they should be merged DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No to separating the sections into three tables. The cast turnaround is not supportive of this. B.Davis2003 (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no point in splitting them. Like B Davis stated - the cast turn around is not massive.<b style="color:blue;font-family:Times New Roman">Rain</b> <b style="color:green">the 1</b> 23:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Therealscorp1an - I do not think I have experienced a new editor trying to change everything for a long time. I think you are trying to cause trouble on this project. You are succeeding.<b style="color:blue;font-family:Times New Roman">Rain</b> <b style="color:green">the 1</b> 23:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to cause trouble at all. I'm sorry if it looks that way. All I'm doing, and all I've ever done, is make suggestions. Sorry if it looks like I'm try to make trouble because that was never my intention. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not want to upset anyone or try to cause any trouble but I personally agree with the changes. Whenever I go to check for the cast changes I am always confused whether the characters are returning or debuting, and I always have to click on the character to find out the status, and I am unable to do this when the character has no page/section. The soap has a much bigger cast turnover than Emmerdale and The Bold and the Beautiful, but they still use the three sections format. Neighbours and Home and Away both have quite high cast turnovers in my opinion, so seperating them would be a good idea. Also it would be a good idea for consistency. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's as confusing as you're making out, and almost all characters (new or returning) have pages or list entries. I already said in my edit summary when I reverted the change that I oppose it for pretty much the same reasons given by User:B.Davis2003 and User:Raintheone. And the page is consistent... with the other Australian soap opera. - <b style="color: Purple; font-family: Arial;">JuneGloom07</b> Talk  02:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * But that's the thing - for the Home and Away character lists, the last three characters in the debuting/returning list are linked, so there is no way to find out if they are debuting or if they are returning, and so it is confusing. Debuting and returning are not the same thing, and I really do not think they should be merged. The main reason for keeping them is because the cast turnover isn't very high, but it is the similar to the US and UK soaps (and even more than some of them). I think we should split up the sections, or at least do notes in the date section e.g. Returning 17 September etc. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, not trying to cause arguments or upset anyone, I am just trying to make the section cleared DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * References

Time for own pages
Would it not be time for Mackenzie, Hendrix, Harlow, Roxy & Nicolette to get their own pages? Especially with Mack being the first trans character in Neighbours. 82.132.247.93 (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think all four of them meet the notability guidelines now, but they will only get pages once someone starts creating them. I may begin writing a page for one of them soon. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022
Montana Marcel's addition to the Recurring characters section needs to be properly processed. 150.143.113.245 (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Terasail [✉️] 19:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been done now anyway so it doesn't matter.150.143.113.245 (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for getting this all done. Funnily enough, I was actually planning on doing this today, so you've saved me a lot of time, haha. Good job. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Recurring Cast question for Relaunch
I just saw the new hidden additions to the recurring cast section to three characters who were recurring before the 2022 cancellation. I have not heard of those three cast members returning in the reboot this year up to today. Where is everybody getting the confirmation on the hidden characters return? Is there a valid source? 135.0.252.54 (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey. As far as I know, I believe they have not been removed from the list as so then if/when they reappear, they can just unhidden easily, as whilst there is no valid source for their return, it is possible that they may return at some point, and thus it is easier. But they are hidden as there is no source/confirmation of their return. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Melanie and Reece
In the very first episode, Melanie Pearson was apparently left uncredited. In the second episode, she was not featured in the opening titles. Does this mean she is no longer considered a regular character? Obviously she would still remain in the regular box because she used to be one, but I’m just asking.

The new opening titles also do not include the names of the characters, actors and actresses. At the end of the opening sequence, Reece Sinclair is seen meeting up with Byron. Reece is featured in the opening titles — is she now a regular? The Australian broadcast that I watched didn't even include credits at the end so none of the actors nor actresses (or even the producers, etc.) were credited at all at the end of the episode. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * For Melanie, we have a source saying she is returning as a regular in 2023. Surprisingly it hasn't happened yet (a secret flashback scene, really?!), but until we hear different she remains a present regular. Amazon Freevee broadcasts have a clear closing credits system: a screen and a half of regular main characters, followed by half a screen of irregular mains (minors and Sam), then a new screen of guests. In episode 1, Reece was there. Presuming it's the same in ep2, which I haven't checked, she's recurring. I guess Amazon insisted on the weird visual 'special guest star' titles appearance! By the way, how should we list the gondola driver? U-Mos (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * User:U-Mos, which gondola driver sorry? Is this from Episode 8906? If so, I haven't seen that yet. And very strangely, the Australian broadcast is omitting the final episode credits at the end of the episodes. There seems to be some inconsistencies between the Channel 10 broadcast and the Freevee Broadcast, like some of the opening titles sequences. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Haha, just the strangely prominent extra in the Varga-Murphy titles shot (on Freevee at any rate)! U-Mos (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For clarity, Reece remains in the guest star credits in episodes 2 and 3. U-Mos (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Unbelievable! U-Mos (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What a coincidence. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Merge from List of former Neighbours 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. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC) See also Articles for deletion/List of Neighbours characters. Pinging participants of that discussion: User:U-Mos, User:Deathlibrarian, User:Chrisclear, User:Jclemens, User:Rillington. 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_Doctors_characters, Talk:List_of_Coronation_Street_characters, Talk:List_of_Home_and_Away_characters --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep. This article is just way too massive to have it merged with List of Neighbours characters. I think the same goes for most of the others as well, which is why having separate merge articles for EVERY SINGLE soap is a bit redundant, especially considering that you're just going to get the same editors commenting the same responses. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Therealscorp1an The main article for current charactersis very short. So your objection doesn't make sense. Moving characters between current, former, and List of recurring Neighbours characters is pointless work (it also eats up the time of the volunteers maintaining those lists and ensuring that a former but now current or recurring character is in the right list, time better spend on making the lists prettier or virtually any othber kind of wiki-work). If the final list would be too long, then split it into A-M and N-Z, like done with for example of List of Marvel Comics characters: D and like. Readers don't want partial lists particularly when those require constant updates. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 • 10:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as proposed, but invite further discussion There's more to this than you recognise, and that's before considering the other soaps. There's a strong argument for discussing this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas as opposed to multiple separate discussions that could result in inconsistencies across the project. But here's the Neighbours picture:
 * There are currently three central (i.e. not by year) Neighbours characters articles:
 * List of Neighbours characters, which lists characters presently appearing and those known to be arriving/returning in the future, with sources.
 * List of former Neighbours characters, which essentially archives past regular characters.
 * List of recurring Neighbours characters, which does the same for past recurring characters. Or does it? Byron Stone is currently listed there as well as on the Neighbours characters page, where the other two current recurring characters are not. The edit history suggests they never were, though, including when the show was 'ended', and other recurring characters from 2022 appear to have been neglected too (I just did a search for Isla Tanaka-Brennan and Aubrey Laing, both of whom are missing). So in any event that page needs attention.
 * For clarity, I have only regularly edited the first of these.
 * I object to the misrepresentation of the deletion discussion you link to. This was made, and actioned, when the show had ended forever. Oh, what brief but dark times! At that time, some editors impulsively transitioned List of Neighbours characters to display those who appeared in the final episode, which was entirely redundant to the cast list at Finale (Neighbours). Therefore, with no current cast, List of former Neighbours characters became List of regular Neighbours characters. This change was reversed when the show resumed production earlier this year, and the old structure restored. That deletion discussion is no longer relevant.
 * However, there are a lot of aspects of the existing structure - restored this year as the status quo, but not extensively discussed - that aren't ideal. These spring to mind for me:
 * List of Neighbours characters is ostensibly the central page, with the others spinoffs from it. List of former Neighbours characters is linked from a subsection at the bottom of the page, while List of recurring Neighbours characters is linked as further information from the recurring tables characters above.
 * List of former Neighbours characters isn't the clearest title. It's not all former Neighbours characters, because recurring characters are at List of recurring Neighbours characters. But the latter is linked in the lead, so maybe that's OK.
 * List of recurring Neighbours characters doesn't explain what it is (i.e. should it have present characters in or not?). I'm not sure anyone knows. Does it need to exist? Is it just WP:FANCRUFT? Does it do anything useful that isn't covered by the year by year articles? There are, however, some recurring characters who are notable enough to have their own article, such as Gemma Reeves (what a random example! Yes, I'm currently watching early 2014 episodes...).
 * List of recurring Neighbours characters also is just a list, with no sources to justify notability. Well, there's one - for a character I moved from the former characters article upon realising they were never credited as a regular - but that's it.
 * In the world where Wikipedia was my own personal fiefdom, here's what I'd do:
 * Merge List of recurring Neighbours characters into List of former Neighbours characters as a first priority, trimming the cataloguing for its own sake. Use only characters who have their own articles to link to in this combined list.
 * Consider merging this combined list into List of Neighbours characters, if the resulting article wouldn't be too large/difficult to navigate. I considered looking into collapsible tables for former characters, but WP:COLLAPSE says we should avoid this.
 * Lastly, I strongly oppose splitting between the alphabet rather than the current structure. Yes, Wikipedia should generally not favour the recent in fictional topics, but the consensus of longstanding practice is that with soap operas that currently air there is a strong benefit in highlighting present cast. Hence the classification category in Template:Infobox soap character, which doesn't exist in Template:Infobox character. If we split, the current way of doing so makes sense. But I do thank you for opening the discussion - clearly I have thoughts! U-Mos (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @U-Mos Thanks for the explanation, but I am a bit confused - why are you opposing? Aren't you also agreeing all of this should be m erged into one list? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the discussion could be had at a later point, probably alongside other soaps, but merging/trimming of the other two characters articles for Neighbours would need to happen first before it can even be considered. U-Mos (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @U-Mos Given the other comments here, I don't think this will be possible without input from neutral editors at AFD, to overcome the SOAP's OWN attitude :( <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong opppose – The former discussion was when the soap had ended and so it was a very different situation, as all characters were former and thus it didn't make much sense to have a final character list as 1.) It is ambiguous (who is counted as a final character) and 2.) It is on the Finale page. The reason why the current list is quite small at the moment is because the soap has not returned yet and about half the cast will be new cast members who are not on the table yet, and there are likely various cast members who will join later on and/or have not been announced yet. Separating the lists is not pointless. It is important as it ensures that readers are aware between the difference between current and former characters. This soap is known for it's high changeover and aired continously for 37 years. I disagree that it means that there is a lot of work for editors – it is not, as editors 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 or IP moves the character to the former list the minute the episode airs. Merging all three pages could 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. For the recurring list, I personally think it is usually as it differentiates between characters who are regular and recurring and keeps the lists from being too big (though clarity over whether current recurring characters would be very useful). That list does need more sources but this would very easy to do as most of the characters on that list are sourced on their character pages/section. It would not be the biggest loss if it was merged with the former cast list, but anymore than that would be too big and difficult to navigate and load and cause many issues. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Returning cast
Chloe and Elly are announced as returning so why are they on the departing list and on the current cast list when they both haven’t yet returned? This is poorly done and need correcting. They need to be added to a returning cast section. 92.233.168.171 (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've reverted this as we consider characters who are not absent for an entire calendar year to be continuous appearances. Chloe and Elly both appeared in 2022 and are returning this year, so are present regular characters. They are listed as departing as we know their returns are not long term. U-Mos (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense they have been gone from the show for 15 months so far so that’s over 1 calendar year. So you are incorrect. 92.233.168.171 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * One calendar year, as in the entirety of (in this case) 2023. U-Mos (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No still sounds stupid she’s a returning cast member 92.233.168.171 (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That may sound stupid to you, but that's just how it works. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Page Layout
Now that the "Former characters" have been merged with the "Regular former" characters, most of the recurring characters have been left out, other than the ones with their own pages. I am unsure about this as it leaves out many, many important guest and recurring characters of the soap over its 38 year history.

Personally, I thought there being separate sections for "Regular former" and "Recurring former" were quite handy, as the recurring tends to be quite longer and a distinction can be quite useful. Additionally, if we start to exclude recurring characters, there will be many arguments over who to include and exclude. On the UK soap pages, we include characters with their own sections (not just in the "Others" table) as it means they are significant or if they have been in 4 episodes or more. It can be sourced as a group project over time. I know there can be some disagreements, but the main point made at the AFD for the recurring and former pages was that it would be more useful to have one single list rather than 3 (I did not agree with this, but that does not matter at this moment), but now 95+% of the recurring and guest characters are gone, which is confusing. These lists were meant to be a guide for viewers where they could browse and search and then click on them if they had a section/page for more information. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, please do take any decision beyond the merger as a WP:BOLD one. I maintain, however, that the exhaustive list that was at List of recurring Neighbours characters needed extensive cutting, and copying significant portions of it over would have allowed the errors that littered that page to remain. Listing only characters with their own article gives a clear and unambiguous criteria, inextricably tied to their notability, which other/variable qualifications may not. I just don't see the purpose of archiving a character in the former characters section to guide readers to nowhere other than their presence in another list. I did have pause when it came to regular characters without their own articles (which meant these characters were removed), but ultimately felt consistency was the best option. If a reader feels that characters such as Maria Ramsay and Pierce Greyson should be listed here, and fair enough, then they should go ahead and write them an article! U-Mos (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey U-Mos. Congratulations on being bold enough to make the changes. It does not seem an easy task. As with the H&A list, I like it all in one list. Perhaps we could decide on the criteria for the list. It could be as simple as including any confirmed regular character with a source and any recurring character that has an article written about them. Maria Ramsay, Pierce Greyson, Susan Cole etc, which were already sourced, could be added back? You stated you removed them for consistency, but any regular character and significant recurring character still feels consistent. Those instances guide general readers to list entries and they can read more Wikipedia content. That is the same purpose as clicking the link to the stand alone article.<b style="color:blue;font-family:Times New Roman">Rain</b> <b style="color:green">the 1</b> 22:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Good job, U-Mos! In my opinion, I think the criteria for it should be: all regular characters added and all recurring characters that have their own article added as well. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable and manageable - I've re-added all regular characters to the list now. U-Mos (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is great to have a positive outcome. The merge is completed and we have a criteria for inclusion. I like this new vibe of working together for the better - we are all being productive and creating content.<b style="color:blue;font-family:Times New Roman">Rain</b> <b style="color:green">the 1</b> 23:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Krista Sinclair
I don't get it. I added a source for this character and it was deleted. I then removed the character from the list and she has been returned with the "citation needed" box next to her. But I added a citation, therefore following Wikipedia's rules. What's happening to this page?150.143.113.199 (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @150.143.113.199 Sorry if my edit summaries weren't clear. The source you added was not sufficient, as it was merely a discussion of the storyline prior to Krista's arrival. It neither confirms she would be introduced, or reports on her casting. As the character was stealth introduced as part of a week with a lot more to grab headlines, I haven't seen anything online reporting Majella Davis joining the cast yet. Feel free to use Template:cite episode to add a primary source for the time being if you have the time. I'm not sure why you felt the need to remove the entry, as there's no disputing its accuracy and it's only a matter of time before a good web source is available. U-Mos (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I only removed it to draw attention to the issue. I knew it would be put back. It looks like a source has been found now so it doesn't matter anymore. I just cut and picked the sources on the character page. I didn't realize what they were as I thought if they were good enough to be used on the character's page, they would be good enough for the main page too. My mistake. But it has been sorted now anyway as a source has been added. Once more, apologies for any inconvenience.150.143.113.199 (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Melanie what?!
Just a note here to acknowledge that Melanie is currently being credited as Melanie Pearce, not Pearson, and it appears not to be a mistake as it's been the case for multiple episodes and in Amazon's X-ray feature. But I think we don't do anything until matters become clear on screen. U-Mos (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * More than likely just a production error, but I pretty big one to say the least! - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)