Talk:List of characters in Holby City

Untitled
What's with the colours? Dan100 (Talk) 13:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They signify series DBD 18:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Would be useful to add some notes to the article indicating meaning. Keith D 10:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of information
I see no reason why pertinent information is being constantly removed from this article. The characters' full names, job histories, and the wards they work on are all valid inclusions, and rather than simply deleting them at will, it would be useful to have an explanation and justification for doing so. Frickative 23:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The charactersn full names and the wards they work would be better if they were on the characters own page, and the wards that characters work on is constantly changing anyway now. Calcon18 13:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Frick, it's extremely annoying. Calcon – by that reasoning, episode writers, directors, airdates, etc. should not appear on episode lists? And actually, I reckon we do a good enough job keeping it up to date. Or at least Frick and I do, when we're not being obstructed! DBD 14:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Im not sayin that, i just mean that on the main page really, there only should be the characters name, who he/she is played by and maybe what there role is, the rest can go on the characters own page. Calcon18 18:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes, and about the use of templates transcluded from user space
I've replaced the "spoiler" tags for departing and returning characters with, which I believe to be more suitable for this purpose.

I notice that there are a lot of transclusions of pages from user space. I'd like to move those to template space where they belong, but first I'd like to discuss this. Why is userspace being used in this way? --Tony Sidaway 18:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Characters departing and returning
Generally: Would it be possible for people who add to this list please cite their references.

Riatsila 07:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Why has Dan Clifford been cited as 'returning'? There is no proof that he is returning to the show in 10x25. Christian1985 18:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.147.229 (talk)
 * I wouldn't have listed him as 'Returning' myself seeing as it's only a one off appearance, but he certainly will be in the episode. See the BBC Holby homepage for confirmation. Frickative (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I apologise it is just there are wind-up merchants who keep listing people as returning on these lists with no proof. Apologies anyway Christian1985 18:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.147.229 (talk)

Proposed layout change
I think that the cast list should be changed to look less cluttered. The area given for each cast member is huge and looks too big on the page. I propose that the cast list be changed to a small and much tidy arrangement, such as that seen in the Coronation Street cast list here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_from_Coronation_Street

What do others think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.3.248 (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this what you have in mind? Agreed it does reduce the size of the article by almost half, but equally I think I'm still inclined to prefer the layout of the page as it stands currently. Frickative (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Frickative

This is what I mean, yes. I think the current layout works, it's just a little large since Holby City now has a larger cast and a huge former cast, perhaps it's time to look at an alternative way of presenting this information in a more compact and easier to read way.

I also think the colour code bars at the side are redundant - the broadcast numbers (1x01 etc) and year are listed for each character.


 * Well, I'm perfectly happy to accept that my attachment to the page as stands is largely on an aesthetic level, and that WP:ILIKEIT is far from a valid reason to want to keep it as is :) So I'm happy to go with consensus on this one, and if change is what's wanted, then that's fine by me. Frickative (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, we can change the layout. I'd rather it stay as-is – again, for æsthetic reasons. However, if consensus supports a change, then it can be done very easily indeed – because the page uses templates, we need only change the templates once each! But then that would also affect other pages (one moment whilst I look it up). DBD 12:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, just realised the templates aren't used on the page any more. DBD 12:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

New Holby City website
Just a heads up that the BBC have rejigged the Holby City homepage, meaning a lot of external and reference links in character articles now need updating to point to the correct page. Although there's a lot of new trivial content, the character biographies have been stripped down to bare bones, so some quotes are no longer supported by the content of the new pages. I think there should be a fairly easy way to update the links using AWB, which I'll have a play with later, but I just wanted to mention it here in case anyone came across any problems. Frickative (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

New layout suggestion
I think the page is in need of something new. I've created a little table below (note that I have added an extra column for the Ward and also something new - "family". Take a look and please give your opinions - positive or negative. If there are extra bits you think could go in, or bits that are not needed, please feel free to edit the table and move things around.

I have used the colour to reflect those used in the opening titles.

Characters on Hiatus
What does this mean? Is it that they're leaving for a while and coming back, or only taking a minor role in the programme for a while? steve king  89  23:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The first one. The last time we used it on this page it was when Amanda Mealing had the summer off and Connie went to Hamburg, and with Chrissie at the moment, it's because Tina Hobley's off on maternity leave, so Chrissie will be off screen for a few months. Frickative (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The restyling
What's with the restyling? The table before looked better and gave a bit more information on it concerning the periods of time that they (the characters) have been in it, as well as their full names and the shorter names they're called (i.e. Constance "Connie" Beauchamp). steve king  89  23:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back to the old style, hope no one minds :) i don't really wanna start an editing war :S . steve  king  89  20:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, sorry, I meant to reply before but evidently forgot! Apologies. Anyway, although in the past (as evidenced, I think, by this talkpage!) I've been quite opposed to changing the layout of the table, lately I've been wondering if maybe there is too much info in there.  I think things like the characters full names as opposed to known names, and exact durations (especially in the case of Abra and his ridiculous yo-yoing!) might better be contained in the articles themselves, with this one providing just a summary. However, I have actually been looking at the Featured list criteria and wondering how that might apply to this page. I honestly don't know if it's something we could aim towards here, because the only current featured lists of characters I can find are List of Metal Gear Solid characters and List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow. Obviously both are significantly different to this article in its current form, and aiming for Featured status would likely mean doing away with the table format entirely. I'm not saying 'we should definitely do this!' or anything, because I'm still pondering myself, but its something to think about, at least :) Frickative (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So my attempt at this style:

Kobina Eric ‘Ric’ Griffin''' Ric (played by Hugh Quarshie) is the Ghanaian Head of General Surgery and a Consultant Surgeon on Keller Ward and is the second longest surviving characters on the show (having joined in 2001, although taking a break out from part of 2006 and coming back in 2007). He is an assertive doctor who fights for his patients and for what he believes medicine is about. Ric has been married five times (twice to fellow Holby doctor Lola Griffin) and has eight children and two grandchildren, both of whom died.
 * This sort of thing? steve  king  89  23:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, along those lines :D I don't know if you put it in blockquotes just to make it stand out from the talkpage, but I think based on other Featured lists, it'd be best as just straight text in the article itself. Looking at the example articles above, it almost seems as though, in the cases of the better developed articles we have, it'd simply be a matter of summarising their lede sections really, which ought to make things quite simple. My stab at it:

Percival "Abra" Durant

Percival "Abra" Durant (portrayed by actor Adrian Edmondson ) arrived in July 2005, in the episode "Tuesday's Child". While the role was created for Edmondson as a one-off guest-appearance, he has since reprised the role of Abra six times, stating that he has loved the show since its 1999 conception. Abra's initial role in the show was that of Third World rights champion and humorous surgical maverick, whose major storylines centered around serious rule breaking, and his relationship with colleague Kyla Tyson. Upon returning to the show in April 2008, the character took a darker turn, resorting to self harm as a symptom of post-traumatic stress, following a harrowing experience in the war torn Congo.


 * Is it worth putting in a little picture of the characters next to their paragraphs, even though the only images we really have of them to add are those on their individual character pages? steve  king  89  15:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is looking great, now! I keep meaning to comb through and add in a couple more citations for unreferenced statements, but it really is looking fantastic. I was thinking perhaps once we've finished tweaking bits here and there, we should put it up for Peer Review? On the image issue I'd say that I think it'd probably do the article more harm than good - from what I understand, one of the clauses of uploading Fair Use images stipulates minimal use. I've seen Fair Use images tagged for deletion if there's more than four or five on one page, so I definitely don't think 20-odd would fly. Which is why I made the composite image of all the headshots at the top, so we've got everyone in there, without needing a tonne of separate images. Darn Holby for apparently not doing a proper group photo this series, apart from the silly one of them all huddled in the snow at Christmas *g* Frickative (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I never realised you'd made that image yourself, I thought you nicked it from somewhere else (it looks good). I think the Peer Review sounds like a good idea, although I couldn't concentrate long enough to read how the process works; sounds good though! :D  steve  king  89  16:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The new layout
I have to say I really do not like this new layout. It's hard to see when a character arrived or departed. Episode numbers have disappeared and the page general looks cluttered and a mess. The previous table was by far the best way to represent this information. It was clean, simple and tidy. I recommend going back to that as this new layout just doesn't cut the mustard in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.70.50 (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

steve king  89  00:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely an experienced Wikipedia editor such as yourself can understand that this new type of listing meets the Featured list criteria standards? The best thing that we could probably do is wait until it goes under Peer Review and see what feedback we get from that?


 * Gah, every time I try and reply to this, my browser crashes before I hit save. Let's try for third time lucky... Although the previous style of the page might have been more 'clean', 'simple' and 'tidy', it was also, unfortunately, inherently in-universe and unreferenced.  It's all very well and good knowing that Chrissie was once Clinical Matron, and Abra returned briefly on June 16th and 17th 2006, but this is all information that can be better expressed in the individual character articles.  What we should be aiming for is an article of the sort this one is becoming, with encyclopedic content dealing with out of universe information and asserting the characters' real world notability.  Things like Jaye Jacobs raunchy photoshoot shenanigans having caused the BBC to blanket ban its female stars posing for lad's mags are far more notable from a Wiki POV than the fact that Donna sometimes works on Keller and sometimes on AAU.
 * (As an aside, while I've got the talk page open, I'm about to go through the article and drop in a handful of tags where additional referencing is required.  I know where most all the references needed can be found, but I'm just going to stick the 's in as placeholders to make sure I don't miss any as I work through :))  Frickative  (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's all well and good mentioning the issue about Jaye Jacobs, but the section for "Donna Jackson" is more about the actress than the character! What we need is the previous table with character name, artist, role, duration. Anything else can go on the characters' own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.87.51 (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This article needs to meet the Featured list criteria. The before table did not, this version does though. We can't just go aginst wikipedia standards because a few people prefer a different version. And as for the Donna Jackson article, if you think it's lacking more on the character; then add it as that page is meant for the character history, this page is not. steve  king  89  22:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * i've just reread that and it seems a little confrontational, sorry, it wasn't meant to be :D . steve  king  89  01:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Intra-Wikipedia references
Do the references really count if they link up to another page within Wikipedia? Should they not be to external sites? steve king  89  12:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which ones do you mean? The episode ones? The cite episode template page says the episode link should link to the Wiki page for the individual episodes, or the relevant episode list if individual articles don't exist. It says they should only link to an external URL if no Wiki page at all is in existance. But in this case, what we're really citing is the episode itself as a primary source, so it's the episode that would be used for verifiability, rather than an external source, if that makes sense? Of course, if that's not when you meant, then disregard all of the above :p Frickative  (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooooooh, I didn't know that, thanks :D steve  king  89  13:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert to old format
I am no expert in Wikipedia and I have read through the comments on this talk page, but can I ask why this article does not have a format similar to Casualty's List of characters in Casulty? Shouldn't all the information on this page be on a Characters of Holby City page? As a reader trying to find out about the coming and going cast members, this page is useless. What do you think? Adamiow (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Couldn't disagree more strongly. Wikipedia's purpose is providing encyclopedic content. If all you're after is a list of comings and goings, you'll find one at Digital Spy. If anything, it's the Casualty page that needs overhauling. The first point of the Featured List criteria necessitates a "professional standard of writing". That's not something a bullet point list like this facilitates.  Frickative  21:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that every single cast list across Wikipedia is wrong? All of the major soaps and major TV series have something similar to the Casualty cast list. Having had a quick look at some of the current featured list articles, the nearest examples include List of Harry Potter cast members, List of cast members of The Simpsons and List of Blue Peter presenters, which all are much more like the Casualty article than the current one here. Adamiow (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're comparing apples and oranges. Those are lists of real people. This is a list of characters, better compared to List of Metal Gear Solid characters and List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow, for instance. If "all of the major soaps and major TV series have something similar to the Casualty cast list", then there are evidently a large number of badly under-referenced articles out there. Frickative  22:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Frickative is correct on this matter, as this method is more comprehensive in finding actual information rather than the sake with keeping up with the popular medium for Cast and character lists found throughout wikipedia.
 * What is the difference between a list of real people and a list of characters? Equally, the focus of these lists could be the cast, rather than the characters, which is the same as my previously mentioned articles. The articles you are mentioning can not be accurately compared to this article, as they are not based on real life actors in a continuous series, instead being video game characters. Unfortunately, there is no similar article with the Featured List status, so it is very hard to compare other articles to find the correct methods. Therefore, I am going to try and seek the advice of the WikiProject Soap Operas team on this article, as I personally feel that there is room for both types of article. Adamiow (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it highly unlikely that any editor is going to find this version of the article preferable to the current revision, and frankly think that trying to revert it to such a basic, unreferenced, unprofessional state would all but constitute vandalism, but by all means, seek wider consensus... And by the by, the article is titled List of characters in Holby City, not List of Holby City cast members. Frickative  11:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that the current version of the page is bad, rather the contrary to that. The page is fine, but I think it would be better if this was on a seperate page, as is the case on the Casualty pages, and this page has a list of characters like Casualty. Also, I did say that the focus could be the cast members, rather than the characters, which would make my suggested format in line with the examples that include List of Harry Potter cast members, List of cast members of The Simpsons and List of Blue Peter presenters. I am not trying to cause an argument here, but just trying to express my opinion, which is why I am seeking a wider view to see if I am right or wrong. Adamiow (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The only reason there are separate articles for Casualty - the list of characters and the 'Characters of Casualty' article - is because there were a number of individual articles for the Casualty characters that were made up of nothing but plot detail. So they were all merged to the one page, meaning it serves a different function to this article. I would suggest that it would be easy enough to pop something like this:

Impending cast changes
into the 'Characters' section of the parent Holby City article, and I'd have no real objection to that, but ultimately I think if the article ever reached the point of being GA nominated, any reviewer would bring up the fact that prose is preferred over a table. Alternatively we could even put in something similar on this page as a sort of 'summary', if you will, but again, I'm not at all convinced it would withstand FL scrutiny. Frickative 16:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be more than happy with either suggestion,whichever you think is best but maybe it would be best to use User:DBD/Cast start and User:DBD/Holby characters, as these look much more appealing and incorporate the series colours. I'm glad we have made progress on this. I will tell the WikiProject Soap Operas people that we are ok now too. Adamiow (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The only problem I have with the characters template is that, compared to the above, it's absolutely massive:

Impending cast changes
Plus of course then you have to have the key in there of: Which takes up even more space... The size just makes it seem excessive, as if it's more decorative than functional. How about a sort of middle ground of:?

Impending cast changes

 * Good point about the size. The middle ground is fine. Adamiow (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And done :) Frickative  21:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. Cheers. Adamiow (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom O'Dowd
Is it worth adding the new character? He's not included in the opening credits (yet) and he wasn't in the series promo-photo, if yes then what type of character is he: main or recurring? steve king  89  22:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The actor's website's changed now, but I Googled him when it came out that he was coming back to the series, and it said then that he was only going to be in it for three months-ish. I'm not sure, it seems like he's going to be a main character, but only for a really short period? So not really recurring, but just a flash in the pan as main characters go... Hm, it's hard to know, really. Frickative  22:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * With regards to appearing in the titles, I don't Rachel has been added to the titles yet, so I assume that they will add Rachel and Tom at the same time, or maybe they will wait until Chrissie returns and add all three! With regards to his status as main or recurring, if he is only around for three months but is in the main cast, it is the same as Abra, who was always considered main cast on his "more than a few episodes" stints. Adamiow (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Baptiste and Tara Sodi
Is it worth removing Rachel Baptiste from the list bearing in mind that the series' producers have said the character has moved to geriatrics and is unlikely to be seen again? Also, I've already been told off for adding Tara Sodi to the characters section on the main Holby City page as she is apparently not a permenant character. If this is true, should she also not be removed from here? To be honest I haven't actually seen anything that confirms she's in a long term contract, but what I have read seems to refer a longterm story. steve king  89  17:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, but Annalese Carson is not featured in the opening credits, but could be considered a permanent character (she was in nearly ever episode after she joined in November, until leaving (for the actress' maternity leave) a few weeks back, before reappearance this coming week.

Interesting! Skarloey (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We've always kept characters that are on maternity leave on the list, which is mainly Chrissie and from what I've read Annalese is meant to be returning full time at some point. Rachel Baptiste seems to be written out but without any mention of it or proper confirmation. And I've really got no idea about Tara Sodi, the user who claims that she's not joining as a full time character has been warned a number of times in the past about various edits so I'm not entirely sure if, without any evidence, if to take their word. Then again there's no evidence to say they're wrong. 'Tis a pickle. steve  king  89  01:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on Rachel having been removed from the current characters list on the BBC site, I'd say it's safe to move her to Former Characters now. As for Tara - I've definitely read somewhere that Meera Syal's only doing a 10 week stint, but given that we have recurring characters on the main page list anyway, I see no problem listing her there. IIRC, the reverting editor used the rationale that if we're going to list Tara, we might as well list characters like Martha. Well, we did in fact used to list Martha back when she was a HCA, as well as all the major recurring characters like Max, James, Lady Byrne etc. Maybe we should have a small separate list for the recurring characters below the main characters again? Frickative