Talk:Lists of Coronation Street characters

Vera Duckworth as a recurring character

After November or December 2007, when Vera leaves, she will continue to make appearances on the show which will class her as a recurring character, however, please do not move her page on here, just leave a link to Vera's page when she is added to the recurring section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.220.176 (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn’t Vera continue to have her own page anyway since she was such a long-term, major character? Also, her current longer article is so informative for newer viewers wanting to acquaint themselves with her backstory and the backstories of those connected to her, that to reduce it to a minor-character capsule entry in this article would be a shame. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Recurring section?

How do we know if someone is a recurring character or not? I could see Yvonne and Ivor but what about George Trench and Wiki Dankowska? I mean it was big news about Keith Barron joining the show. What about characters like Doreen or Finlay? Why are they in the regular section and not in the recurring section? Emmerdale doesn't have a recurring characters chart and Eastenders had a similar problem with the character of Heather when Digital Spy noted that she was was semi-regular but they still kept her on the main characters chart. Finally, Where is it actually written about characters like Doreen, George or Wiki, as to their contract status, like the American soaps? With just a few exceptions, I have never read on websites or Inside Soap, that such and such a character has signed a contract or will be a recurring player, only that they were hired in the show. Do we know for sure if these characters are just laying low for a while and then being brought into a major storyline like John Stape? Do we even need this section? Can we not just integrate them into the regular cast section.

If you think this section is needed why not add Christian, Tony and Marcus into here. Just a thought 69.90.207.38 21:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)samusek2

This is, afterall, a public encyclopedia which (excuse the cliche), anyone can edit. If you believe some should be here whilst others should not, be bold and make the adjustments (providing you can adaquately justify such edits if they're not too obvious). Emmerdale does have a recurring characters article, right here. Regardless of whether they are intended to be in for the long term or will soon be making regular appearances, I guess the judgement must be made as to their "current" status, thus several of those you think may not deserve to be here are in fact recurring at this current moment in time. I agree with you about Finlay, and also all other toddlers/babies which also recurringly appear. Marcus was added, but seems to have been removed..

"Do we even need this section? Can we not just integrate them into the regular cast section."

Well, I did initiate a discussion nearly 2 months ago, for objections/comments to be raised etc... Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember this is a recurring and minor characters section, people like wiki and George are not involved in major storylines and are minor characters. George is not a full time character so he is semi-regular —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.220.176 (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent merges

I just (check the timestamp in my signature) merged quite a few characters into the list per the Afd debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Dent. James086^{Talk | Email} 12:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Morton Family

Why are they in here? They've had a Fair amount of scenes (At least Jerry, Mel and Darryl) to be considered prominent? Conquistador2k6 5 December 2007 10:20 (UTC)

They were included in the AfD to be merged. Personally, I would have been quite happy to allow them to keep their main articles, but I couldn't think of a good enough reason why in their case. You should have inputted on the AfD if you had a problem with that. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree now. The Morton's are a full time family, therefore they need their own page. Dashwortley (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if the current Morton family (except Finlay Bryant) were given their own pages back again. Most now do have their own histories and I assume more will come in the near future, and currently they're starting to clog up the recurring/minor article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think they deserve their own articles now, but I'm not moving them simply because every edit I make get's undone for stupid reasons. Mikeipedia (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lauren Wilson.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Image FURs

Hiya, some may already be aware of this, but we now have to link to the name of each article an image is being used in on the image's 'Fair use rationale'.

I realise that this page has been merged recently, and images I uploaded were obviously merged too. This isn't a problem, however the image FUR needs to be updated when they are merged/unmerged. For instance, Wiki's FUR currently says that the image is 'fair use' in "Wiki Dankowska", when it should now read that it's fair use in "List of recurring and minor Coronation Street characters".

If the FURs are not changed, then the annoying BetacommandBot comes along and tags all of them for deletion per WP:NFCC. Some of these characters have been merged and unmerged several times over the last few months. Each time the image has been tagged for deletion because the FUR hasnt been altered, and if I dont notice then they get deleted. I'm not a regular corrie viewer or editor, and I dont really keep track of corrie pages (I edit Eastenders articles mostly, and just add images for corrie when I can). I will go ahead and change the image FURs now, but if these characters get unmerged again in the future, could you also change the image FUR too? It would be greatly appreciated :) Gungadin♦ 02:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What of past minor characters?

If this page only allows entry of characters who are currently recurring/minor, what of past recurring/minor characters? If one goes to the page currently set up for past characters, each character listed has a wikilink to their stand-alone article. However, if the stand-alone article is for a minor character, other wikieditors and admins want it deleted, arguing that its contents should be merged with an article that deals with multiple recurring character such as this one. The problem at that point is that this article appears to only deal with current recurring characters. This discussion arises from a decision recently to delete the small article (almost a stub, actually) on the formerly recurring character of Hiren ‘Scooter’ Makuna. It was decided that the article would be deleted because the character’s storyline and details were small compared to an article like that for Sarah Platt. However, the result of that decision was that all info on Scooter at Wikipedia would be forever lost. I added the details from that article here. However, later it occurred to me that the intent of this article seems to be to only list current recurring characters. What then of previously recurring characters who no longer “recur”? The Scooter article is not the only one facing this fate. There is currently debate on the Yana Lumb page to merge it with this article or delete it altogether. Will it be allowed here? Can this article be expanded to include recurring and/or minor characters from Corrie regardless of whether they are currently recurring, or formerly so? — SpikeToronto (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's a very valid arguement and one that has passed my own thoughts a couple of times. Although, the problem obviously just doesn't affect this article and this soap, but every tv programme/soap/drama which uses a recurring characters article similarly, and thus changes to this system or indeed improvements to it would be better made in accordance with a higher level decision. If there are any suggestions though that could be easily and beneficially made to coronation street, I don't see why they couldn't be applied independantly. Whichever happens though, I wouldn't like to revert back to the "each and every character has their own unique article" system. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Bungle, why don’t we just go ahead and create one? We can move characters from this article to a past recurring characters article when they leave the show (and I guess move them back if they should ever return). Additionally, people could always add other characters to the past recurring characters article who have already left, are not in the current article, but they remember enough details about them to create an entry. The only problem with moving characters between the articles is that we in Canada, for instance, who are nine months behind, might think a character has left the show not knowing that they came back later — SpikeToronto (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem about differences in location shouldn't be too much of a problem; most editors on Coronation Street articles i'd have thought be from the UK, and whenever a character returns for whatever reason and duration, someone always makes note of it on their article or character space. My concern is how big the size of such a "past recurring" characters article might get; this isn't such an issue with the "current recurring" if the idea is to move them out once they leave or gain a substantial history, and thus the current one will usually be consistant in size because of this.

Just looking over the list of past characters and seeing how many of them have small content in comparison worries me if all those moved to the same article - the size would not only become unmanageable, but possibly beyond the feasible limit of an article size, in time. If such an issue arose, maybe separating by means of year of entry (pre-1990 and post-1990, or similar system for example) would be appropriate. I am merely raising what I think are just "trivial" concerns and may not be a problem, but otherwise besides this i'd like to see support for this to occur. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

First, I imagine this article should be renamed “current recurring characters”. Then, we could make it that when one goes to the as-yet-uncreated List of past recurring and minor Coronation Street characters, there are links to sub-articles that are character groupings. For instance, they groupings could be alphabetized along the lines of:

• A-F
  
• G-L
  
• M-R
  
• S-Z
  

What would you think of that? That might address your quite valid article length concerns. — SpikeToronto (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that you have used an alphabetical example, I see that would fit better than my year of entry example (which was just that, an example). None the less, I think separating them as per discussion here is a must per concerns you have raised, which would also (hopefully) last a long-term solution to the problem; although it might upset those who aren't fans of they describe as "useless and unnecessary listcruft" :) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

“Listcruft.” There’s a word I’ve never heard before! I’ve never created a new page, but would like to have a go at it. I just hope you help me! I was thinking that, at first, there should be no need to break the characters out into separate alphabetically determined pages. One page should suffice for a while. I mean, look how long this page is! I assume that Scooter hasn’t come back to the show, so perhaps I could start the new page by moving his character over there. I was also thinking that maybe one of us could write a section of it for Aiden Critchley since he has not returned to the show and there is no other wikientry for him. If all this sounds okay to you, I could give it a go sometime over the next few days. What do you think, Bungle? — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome to create the page if you want to! If you can copy across what you think/know should be "past recurring", then when I get the chance i'll have a sift through anyone recent that you may not know of. I'm sure others will similarly do the same too, once they're aware of the change in separation.

"Listcruft" is a term I have heard here and there to describe list-based articles with no value or meaning (at least from the opinion of they who use the term). Unfortunately, there have been instances recently of soap-based list articles in particular getting deleted or going through a rigorous debate to question their need of existance, so it's worth bearing that in mind to ensure they remain encyclopedic and on-topic. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Best thing you can do to avoid the AFDs on any character lists is to source things, even plot summary can be referenced by using cite episode template. Adding any real world info is also a good way too, so any info on casting or development should be added if possible. How extensive do you plan to make the lists? Will minor characters from the beginning also be included? If it's going to be extensive, then there may be a problem with doing the lists alphabetically, as some pages will probably be huge, and some not so huge, depending on how they are split. They will also grow indefinitely, because current minor characters will become past minor characters and so on. It's not really a big deal, but it may be annoying to have to split the pages and change all the redirects. Doing it by decade of first appearance is how the EastEnders ones were done initially. so you could have minors of the 60s, 70s and so on.Gungadin 00:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Gungadin, one quick question while I digest the rest of your notes. I am not entirely sure what you mean by “[a]dding any real world info” to improve the articles. I just now added an example of what I think you mean to the article on David Platt (Coronation Street) in the section on Bethany and ecstasy (a sourced and cited a reference to Jude Law). Would you mind taking a look at that and let me know if that is what you meant by “[a]dding any real world info” to improve articles? After, if you don’t mind, why is the adding of real-world connections necessary vis-à-vis works of fiction? Does it have something to do with this plot guideline? Finally, if a wikieditor has to go to outside sources (e.g., books, magazines, newspapers, etc.) in order to insert real-world information for fictional characters, then isn’t that wikieditor performing original rearch? Isn't original research against wikipolicy? As you can see, I am somewhat confused. I am worried that since the entries for past recurring characters will be as brief as those contained in this article, it may not be possible to add real-world connections. Thanks for your help! — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Spike, this is gonna be a long reply, cos there's quite a bit to explain. I'm gonna explain this in full, but not all of it is relevant for character lists. Hopefully you wont fall asleep while reading it :)

Unfortunately, it is all to do with WP:PLOT, which means that articles including nothing but plot summary are not suitable for wikipedia. That policy is a deletionist's wet dream. They use it as an excuse to nominate character articles, and the same users lurk around the AFDs voting delete, delete, delete. Unless a good argument to keep can be made, the pages get deleted. So far, the British soaps have received less scrutiny than other shows, but it's just a matter of time in my opinion. All it takes is one trigger-happy editor to come along and nominate en masse. It is possible to fix up an article during the AFD process, meaning it will be saved. See what I did with Kelly Taylor (EastEnders), Roy Cropper and Sharongate for instance. They were all nominated for deletion, but I added sourced and real world info to each, so they were kept. However, there is only a very small number of editors willing to improve the soap articles in this way (most just add overdetailed plot summary), and if AFDs happened en masse, it would be impossible to alter them all in time.

Lists of characters dont escape this scrutinty either now. Since about August last year this guideline used to recommend combining all non-notable characters into a list. The editors of that guideline decided to change this rule; they reworded it to say that unsourced lists written from an In-universe perspective, were not acceptable for wikipedia. Deletionists used this as an excuse to AFD character lists. Recently, every minor list from eastenders was nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor EastEnders characters, though they were kept, thankfully.

Basically, what this means is that plot summary is ok, so long as you also include sources and real world info too. By real world info, I mean anything that discusses the character as if it was a work of fiction and not from the perspective of the soap universe. So, for instance, you might be able to find information on casting. Often soap actors give interviews to the press, where they might talk about their audition, how they got the part, what the producers wanted from their performance and how they play the character. Producers might give press releases about the characters, describing why they were introduced, their plans for the character etc. Critical opinion, how critics respond to the characters and their storylines. Were they critcised, or praised, are they popular with viewers, ratings (were they high or low) etc. If the characters leave, why did they leave, were they axed like Derek Wilton was for instance. Why were they axed. Development, how the character has developed, comments from actors, producers. It's also possible to describe storylines from a real world perspective, see what we did with Pauline Fowler, which avoids plot summary almost entirely (though this is extreme and im not suggesting that should be done for lists). For minor lists, covering all these aspects wont be possible anyway (if it was the characters would be entitled to their own page). But if you can add in a couple of sourced sentences of real world info here and there, then it will help regarding AFDs (see the kind of thing that has been done for this minor character for an example of what I mean, Ritchie Stringer).

Regarding using offline books, newspapers magazines etc as sources, that's perfectly acceptable per wiki rules and not original research, seeing as you did not invent the information yourself. Books and magazines are verifiable, all it takes is for someone to go and read the book. You just use different reference templates for each type of source, and dont link to an online page in the reference. So long as you cite the source that's used, and don't alter, editorialise or misinterpret what is being said, and you dont copy things verbatim/plagerise (unless you are using a direct quote), then nobody can complain. It's great if you have these offline resources at your disposal, because wikipedia has a biased policy on notability for fiction, whereby characters who would once have been deemed notable in the past due to wide coverage, are no longer accepted as notable due to the unavailability of recent online sources. Offline sources will prove that they are notable :) Gungadin 17:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Dankowska

Anyone know why she's listed here and also has her own page. Wasn't it decided that she had to stay on the list? Gungadin 00:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

She really should only be here on the minor character page until such time as she graduates to being a major character. Wouldn’t that almost be some sort of rule of thumb? — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Scooter

The old character of Scooter appears on this page now, he left around 3 years ago now, why is he on the list if it is for current characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintheone (talk • contribs) 02:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed him myself, he was axed three years ago, left three years ago, has not been seen onscreen since, and there are no plans for him to return. So why should he have been put onto this page in the first place? Raintheone (talk) 22:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Jerry Morton

What's going on with this character? He keeps getting added to the list, then given his own page, but currently he redirects here but is not included on the list, and so his image is orphaned and up for deletion. Should he be on this list, or have his own page? I dont care either way, but if we can make a decision, we will know to revert if he's moved/merged again. Gungadin 19:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's creating all this fuss, I say just give him his own page and let it be. He's hardly a "minor" character (regardless of current duration), and if it stops this stupid revert and redo nonsense then let it be at that. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, i'll find out who last redirected it and tell them what's been decided.Gungadin 21:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You realize that it doesn't matter how important the character is in the show, right? WP:N says "significant coverage from multiple reliable sources". I'm perfectly willing to have an article on Jerry if he meets that criterion. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've found a few that can be used Talk:Jerry Morton#Sources. If anyone can find anymore, please post them there. Gungadin 22:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This list is a joke and POV

Finlay, Wiki, Marcus, Doreen, Tony, Amber, Dan, Harry, Darryl, Tina, Kayleigh, Mel, Wilfred, Freddie, Joshua, John and Roger are all contracted characters who are not minor, and definitely not recurring. The fact that they're on this list is just someone's POV. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody's apparently NOT satisfied with the standard of articles and just chucked them there.

I tried tidying up Jerry and Darryl's but they keep getting reverted.

Conquistador2k6 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:22 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of these were put up for a mass AFD towards the end of last. The result was merge to a list. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Dent Gungadin 21:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Noone is happy with any arrangement, nevermind the current one. As Gungadin said, they were all put up for mass AfD, and given they would have been deleted at that time had they remained separate, the logical answer was to merge them in a single article. POV as maybe, though that is debatable and indeed disagreeable on some counts for the examples listed by Trampikey. If the active contributors are prepared to at least voice their opinion/views/suggestions, then maybe there wont be this endless conflict about what should be where and what not. It seems one person's boldness is another's bitterness at not having input on changes; well, discuss it! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's clear Vandalism. They are current Character's that appear in the show, with contracts. Marcus has had a lot of airtime recently, and became involved in a big plotline. Wiki, the same as she has story's of her own. The Morton's are characters, with their own home. I think we need to decide on a certain change, because it seems to me that someone is vandalising Coronation Street's article's on purpose, but using every trick on Wikipedia to cover it up. This happened with Neighbours, people reverting, removing info all the time. But it got sorted out. Raintheone (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of date page now

John Stape is still on the list yet he has left the soap opera. Ivor Preistly doesn't look like he's back any time soon either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintheone (talk • contribs) 07:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Should I remove John then? And Goerge Trench and Ivor Preistly? Raintheone (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of Digital Spy as a source

My removal of content sourced solely from Digital Spy has been reverted with the claim that it is "a valid, reliable source".

However, the item in question [1], is a pre-broadcast announcement made by one Kris Green and explicitly labelled as a "spoiler", and moreover does not give any source material (no press release of other announcement from Granada, no quotes of the actors or anyone associated with the production).

Moreover this supposedly "valid, reliable source" includes in its "Coronation News" such trivia and gossip as "'Coronation Street' almost killed fan", about a fan who once panicked and broke his neck during a commercial break, and spent the next decade avoiding the show for fear of a repetition. Ridiculous nonsense. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Digital Spy is used as a reliable source of information throughout a multitude of soap articles, including ones which have attained Featured Article status. However, I will not engage further in this discussion, as I find your tone to be distinctly uncivil. Frickative ^(talk) 15:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that DS is acceptable to use as a source. What evidence is there to suggest that the Digital spy source is not accurate? The plot has already aired hasn't it, so what did they get wrong? They get their spoilers direct from the BBC, just like tons of other media outlets do. And I dont see what the story about someone breaking their neck has to do with anything. That's not being linked to here, so it is not really relevant.Gungadin 17:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is about my tone that you find uncivil, but I apologise for offending Frickative. I'll respond to points made by Frickative and Gungadin above.

Firstly, the fact that Digital Spy may be in use on many soap opera-related articles doesn't mean that it's a reliable source. I gave the "'Coronation Street' almost killed fan" story as an example of the very low standard of journalism on that website.

Secondly, the claim is made that Digital Spy "get their spoilers direct from the BBC" (I think you mean Granada, the independent broadcaster which I believe still makes and syndicates the programme through ITV). I find no reference on the website to the source of the story, and find the suggestion that it came from the programme-maker as rather dubious.

Thirdly, this episode was broadcast some time ago. Presumably an episode synopsis published by the broadcaster (sample source here), or else a review by a reputable source, can be substituted for this rather questionable source. In short, there is no need for it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeh I meant Granada/ITV, sorry, my brain's just scrambled after work. If you want to replace the sources then that should be fine, so long as you're not just deleting without replacing with better ones. However, using sources like DS/newspapers is generally preferred, because they are secondary source reporting on the storyline. The official website is deemed a primary source, so it doesnt count towards notability - a problem if this list were to be taken to AFD.Gungadin 18:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you have it wrong. The official website is definitely the preferred source for information such as shooting dates, scheduling of original broadcast, names and backgrounds of characters, storyline and production staff. Where we would want to use a secondary source (and probably one more reliable than the likes of Digital Spy) is in matters such as the critical reception and possibly the viewing figures (although ITV would hardly be likely to fake figures that are audited by BARB and publicly available, I would agree that it is preferable to cite the figures as directly published by BARB).

The idea that we can't use the official synopsis as a source, or should avoid using it precisely because it's the primary source, is preposterous. I've no idea what "notability" is supposed to have to do with this matter. On Wikipedia, notability is a concept used by some people to determine whether in their opinion an article is deletable. I am not suggesting the deletion of this article. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please amend your tone. I agree with Frikactive, you come over as incivil. i'm fully aware of the way wikipedia works, I have been editing fictional articles here for years. You clearly have no experience about editing soap opera articles, so perhaps you should take advice from those who do. No one has suggested that you wanted to delete the article, but that doesnt stop others attempting to, which they have in the past numerous times. In fact there was a mass deletion of all the soap lists on another UK soap not so long ago and lack of notability is frequently used as a reason to delete. Dont believe me? well go research, which you probably should have done before you chose to dictate to experienced soap editors in such a way. The more sources the better. Your reasons for trying to discredit Digital spy are invalid, but if you want to add more sources such as the one you provided, then no one is trying to stop you. Go ahead. But that won't stop people using Digital spy in the furture, because there is nothing wrong with that source.Gungadin 15:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Compacttoc uses

I suggest that there be NO compacttoc, as Chris the master and Frickative had an edit war over this, i feel the compacttoc should be removed. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerboyratz (talk • contribs) 17:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Manual of Style agrees that the number of headings previously created an excessively lengthy TOC. As an aside, have you read WP:SOCK? I do believe you could have several, if not all of your accounts blocked for deceptive editing :) Frickative 17:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony Gordon, Jerry Morton

I know they aren't exactly the stars of the show (and Jerry's leaving soon), but they've both been pushed into a much more central role in the past few months, and that seems likely to continue with Tony for the foreseeable future. Are they still recurring or minor characters? --JamesB3 (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Jerry Morton has now been removed from the list, but Tony Gordon still remains on this list.

Kelly Crabtree

When was the last time Kelly had any story of her own, or made more than a few appearances a month? Does she still count as a main character? --JamesB3 (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now added Kelly to the list, regarding your proposes, i agree with JamesB3 about the character, Wiki Dankowska also appears on the list, as Kelly and Wiki make about the same number of appearances a month, the two dont have many storylines.

Should Kelly remain on this list or not?, Dodgechris, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In the sense of complete removal from the wiki or own article? Personally, I still think the character is too insignificant to warrant an individual article, but there is sufficient history there to warrant wikipedia inclusion. Probably best left as it is. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Does there need to be a past recurring and minor characters list?

I'm not sure Whether to have a past characters who were minor or not, what do you think, Coroguy. (UTC)

I think that could be a good idea. There are some characters who had their pages redirected, like Penny King, who might fit in better on a past minor characters page. There are also a number of characters currently recurring and minor who are leaving soon and have to be put somewhere when they're gone. --JamesB3 (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

When the characters have left, they will be merged with the List of past recurring and minor Coronation Street characters article, Dodgechris (UTC)

Clarissa Mason

It has been suggested that the article Clarissa Mason be merged into this article. Dodgechris (UTC)

I definitely think Clarissa should be merged back in here. I think Teresa Bryant should be also, as well as Kayleigh Morton. The characters just aren't notable enough from a real-world perspective to necessitate individual articles. Frickative 13:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Clarissa and Teresa should be merged back in here, but i think Kayleigh has developed more real world content recently?

Dodgechris (UTC)

Can you find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources discussing the character? A brief Google news search pulls up 3 hits total, all of which are more about Chesney, and trivial in content. Frickative 15:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now found a source on Kayleigh Morton regarding Chesney. Dodgechris (UTC)

Should i add Clarissa then. Dodgechris (UTC)

Morton Family

Does Darryl Morton need to be merged onto this list?, User:Dodgechris (UTC)

If he isn't going to have any major story before he leaves, then I'd say yes, he does need to be merged. --JamesB3 (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added Darryl Morton and Harry Mason, --Dodgechris (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, i'm not too sure Mel Morton should be merged....., as she is currently in a large storyline. --Dodgechris (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Should Darryl really be merged, maybe we could give him his own page, the article held a lot of info, maybe replace his section with Teresa Bryant's? -- Dodgechris (talk) (UTC)

I think of all the Mortons, Jerry, Mel, and then Darryl would be most suitable for a full page. I agree that Teresa should be merged. --JamesB3 (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What about Kayleigh and Finlay? -- Dodgechris (talk) (UTC)

If the contents has not change significantly since the AfD debate, they should not be restored to individual articles. Frickative 11:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So, shall i merge all the Morton's to this list or give them all their own pages? -- Dodgechris (talk) (UTC)

I have added a suugestion to Darryl's page to be merged here -- Dodgechris (talk)

Perhaps with characters like the Mortons, we might consider the type of organisation the Harry Potter WikiProject now use. There were formerly hundreds of different articles for the individual characters, but in the past few months, they restructured so that articles like The Weasley family or Potter family contained the merged content on each character. Then again, in a few weeks time the Mortons would be just as easily merged to the past characters list, so I don't know whether a The Morton family article would be all that different. Frickative 12:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

When the characters leave, Jerry will probably keep his own page, Darryl and Teresa merged to List of past Coronation Street characters (2000-) and Kayleigh, Mel and Finlay will merge with List of past recurring and minor Coronation Street characters -- Dodgechris (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

But whose arbitrary decision is it that Kayleigh, Mel and Finlay are more minor than Darryl and Teresa? Frickative 13:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Morton family page is a great idea.GG^Moan 14:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have begun experimenting this idea in my sandbox. Dodgechris There is now a article for the morton family.

Ted Paige

Ted Paige has now started appearing on a regular basis; so i think that he should be given his own page, what do you think -- Dodgechris (talk) 19:35 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we know how long the actor is supposed to stay around? His character is still just visiting, and lives out of town, right? --JamesB3 (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

He currently lives on No. 8 with the platt', he is not shown to be moving out -- Dodgechris (talk) 20:17 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Merging Jimmy Dockerson

Do you think that Jimmy Dockerson should be merged into this article? -- User:Dodgechris (talk) (UTC)

Minor characters, as agreed some time back, initially go to the minor characters article, until either a substantial character history can be writen, or their duration on the show is of reasonable length; this character isn't an exception in my opinion, and thus should not yet have their own article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD debate

The characters Kirk Sutherland, Molly Compton, Kelly Crabtree, Vernon Tomlin, Chesney Battersby-Brown, Dev Alahan, Carla Connor, Becky Granger, Tina McIntyre, Harry Mason and Dan Mason have all been nominated for deletion, but it is so far unclear whether they should be merged with this article. -- Dodgechris (talk) (UTC)

Some of those characters drive major story (Becky, Carla). I don't think they should be merged with recurring. Dev has also had major stories in the past and is about to start another story. I'm not sure why they were nominated. Maybe something should be put in their articles to prove they're important characters? Like all the hoopla over Becky being the Rover's 50th barmaid. --JamesB3 (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

While all the listed articles have room for improvement (further referencing, more out-of-universe content, clearer assertions of notability), Dodgechris appears to have attempted to withdraw his AfD nomination, and has since been indefinitely blocked for abusive editing anyway, so it's not an immediate concern. Agreed that they should not be merged. Frickative 22:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Now that it's not immediate, you're right, we can look over the pages with more time. On the topic of Kelly Crabtree, I think I was the one who thought she should be moved to recurring, because she hasn't had anything major to do in some time. If people feel she should be moved back to a main character page, I understand. --JamesB3 (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think most should be left. On the subject of Kelly, if we can find references and notability she should be kept as in the past she has been central to her own storylines and has been in the show a few years now. Just a case of improving the article.Raintheone (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa Dalton

She and Dev have already stopped seeing each other. If she doesn't appear again, should she be moved to a past recurring and minor characters page (is there one), or should her profile just be deleted? --JamesB3 (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If the character disappears she will be moved to the Past recurring and minor characters section --Dodgechris (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I would vote to delete the profile if unseen again. There is no real history and nothing meaningful to write about. An encyclopedia is to provide information, and I don't think this character will be worthwhile of an entry. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, i agree, lets redirect her to Past characters if she is not seen next episode, i don't think anyone will ever be craving any information on this character who only appeared for three episodes, i a couple of weeks most people will probobly have forgotten that she ever existed! --Dodegchris (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh no!

I am serious, there is a fault on this article, i'm not sure if its just my computer or a fault everywhere, it is completely wierd, please respond quickly! User:Notdoppler —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Past characters

Many characters like Doreen Fenwick and Wilfred Morton STILL on this page, Wilfred has gone, he left the street nearly a year ago now, and Doreen Fenwick will make her 1 year left anniversary in December, but if Doreen is rm, it will mean her img will be deleted. User:Notdoppler 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, you're the one who merged past and current minor characters into one article. Frickative 11:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wait until the list gets too long and detailed, thats what happened to the Emmerdale one, or we could redirect to Past characters article or onto the past 2000- and merge content into there. User:Notdoppler 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's such a problem for you, why did you merge the content of List of past recurring and minor Coronation Street characters into this article in the first place? Frickative 11:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Cos it was so small! They could all fit into one article, but still it seems a bit wierd...

There are eight past minor/recurring characters all together now, the mortons will be good on there when they leave in a few weeks, as well as Clarissa Mason, so just wait till they leave, yes? User:Notdoppler 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images removed

Per Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles, the fair use images in this article have been removed. For another example where this has been done, see Springfield Elementary School students. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Character infoboxes

The infoboxes on this article are now pointless, without any images we might as well rm all the infoboxes on this article and use family sections for each character, the infobox inormation is already in the characters section anyway (except the family), so i believe they should be removed. User:Notdoppler 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No. They really shouldn't. Frickative 12:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Mel Morton

I know she is leaving, but I think after the events of recent I could probally make her a seperate page with references. She has been involved in a storyline that is portraying a real problem right now in the UK with that sort of violence. And there is bound to be something about the bad relationship with her mother or maybe the police force story. If I can find it etc, shall I do that? I would obviously do a rewrite and out of universe and that. What do you think? Raintheone (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think you can write a decent out of universe article, I say definitely go for it :D I think it's completely arbitrary how it's been decided that Daryl and Teresa necessitate their own articles, but Mel, Kayleigh and Finlay don't... so yup. I've got a couple of TV mags lying around at the moment, and I think one has an interview with whatsherface who plays Teresa, talking about the aftermath of the gang fight with Mel and Abi, and another one with a little snippet from Emma about its effect on Mel, so I'll type those up when I get chance for you to use :) Frickative 21:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have now created the article with Casting, Background, Storyline and Reception information. Wrote it in outuniverse. I actually found quite a few references and there is already complaints and outrage over the storyline that aired last night over gang violence, it was reception i had a hard time with though. Uploaded some new images I obtained too. That will be helpful too, the mag interviews.Raintheone (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Connor

I really don't think that Ryan's article should have been merged here, looking at this, the article already had notability, references and sources before, and was involved in a large storyline. Ced 9:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think Ryan should have a seperate article of his own as he was part of a major storyline earlier in the year, does anybody know how to change this article into a big one.Alex250P (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Future characters

Does the scope of this page include characters that have been announced but have not yet appeared? Bradley0110 (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm, i'm not sure really, i recently created an article on the soon-to-arrive Simon Barlow character, but it was merged with this article, i think maybe it would be best to wait until the characters arrive until the profiles are created. Ced 10:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Betty Williams

I know Betty's infrequently seen these days, but she's consistently appeared on the show for 40 years and has had a number of stories. Should she be considered recurring or minor? --JamesB3 (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, I don't think she should. She certainly doesn't fall under the minor category, because of the duration she has been on the show, and given she once was seen regularly like most other characters, I don't think the "recurring" classification is all that accurate either. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think someone should try to bring back her former page, and possibly expand it some or include notability?--JamesB3 (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I objected to this merge on the character's talk page. I think the merge should just be reverted, there's clearly no consensus, plus one of the people contributing to the debate at the time was DodgeChris Talk:Betty Williams (Coronation Street). The actress has written a book, so if no other recent sources can be found, that would surely give tons of OOU info to support the article. Annoyingly, the image I uploaded of her has now been deleted, but an admin can bring it back.GunGagdin^Moan 22:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Amber Kalirai

I think I can make a full article on Amber, with enough referenced, some casting, reltionships , reception to an extent. storylines will be no problem. I'll do it tomorrow. Raintheone (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree - the character is to be more prominent. As her relationship with Daryl Morton continues, and new cast are being added to the show such as Minnie Chandra who are her friends..This is Drew (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've made the article and just need to tidy the references up a little. I'll do that when I have time. Plenty of content in it too. Raintheone (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lists of Coronation Street characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208114136/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklyterrestrial&requesttimeout=500&flag=viewingsummary to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklyterrestrial&requesttimeout=500&flag=viewingsummary

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)