Talk:List of former Coronation Street characters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Listing major charactrers?

Why are all these major past characters being converted into such a basic list with all the information deleted? What's wrong with listing them in a similar way to List of recurring and minor Coronation Street characters ? Gungadin 12:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Some of the characters are unimportant, but I'm not sure that many should be deleted. For instance, Jed Stone is returning to the show. [1] Instead of creating a new profile for him, shouldn't his old one be revived? --JamesB3 (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All the Jed Stone article actually said was Jed Stone was a fictional character in the British Soap Opera Coronation Street. Played by Kenneth Cope. Jed was a logder of Minnie Caldwell's, she always referred to him as sunny Jim. ...While major characters with decent articles shouldn't be redirected, that's exactly the sort of article that should have been. There's hardly anything there to revive. User talk:Frickative 09:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As an addendum, a few weeks before a lot of articles were re-directed en-masse to here, I had actually started working on a few pages similar to List of recurring and minor Coronation Street characters in my sandbox, splitting the past characters up by era. I abandoned it after a few days because it seemed a bit fruitless. The characters from the 1990s and 2000s had huge articles that in most cases badly needed condensing in terms of the amount of blow by blow plot details they contained, while the earlier articles... looked a lot like the Jed Stone one quoted above, for the most part. This is how stubby the 1960's list ended up: User:Frickative/Sandbox4 User talk:Frickative 09:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point about Jed's article, although I do think we may have to make one for him now, maybe in the recurring and minor characters section. Do you think there were any of the redirected articles which should be brought back? --JamesB3 (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly see why articles like Jed were redirected, but if there's sources readily available, and someone is willing to do the work in creating some OOU content, then there's no reason that cant be recreated at some stage (but only if someone wants to do that, definitely not as it was). But i'm not sure I agree with a character like Raquel being redirected [2]. Her article wasnt great by any means, but it certainly has the potential to be good because the character was so popular and there will be lots of sources discussing her. Plus, and this is the reason I noticed that Raquel and others had been redirected, all the images I uploaded for them were orphaned and have now been deleted, and it's a shame that we've now lost them. There was a trend among soap editors a year or so ago to make pages with just a generic first sentence and infobox, and nothing else. I personally dont believe that stubs like that should exist because mostly they just stay that way indefinitely, and all those should be redirected for certain, but there are a few that I think perhaps shouldn't have been. Still, perhaps it would be best if they stay as redirects until a time when someone actually wants to recreate the article adhering to wiki policy with sources and OOU information. Hopefully this will drum up some interest. Gungadin 23:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Zoe Tattersall?

Why isn't she included on the list, Ben Andrews - whose character only coincided with Zoe's departure - is listed, but wht isn't she? I would add her myself but dont want to make a mistake, I'm not good at editing lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reli source (talk • contribs) 23:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Reordering past characters

As you may notice I've given the page a bit of an overhaul. As it was, there was a lot of nonsensical moving around of characters, so I thought moving the focus away from the duration was the best option. I'd usually discuss such a large edit beforehand but by the time I'd finished it I really wanted you to see the finished list before judging it. Of course this is all on a trial basis, but I personally love the new layout. Go ahead and tell me what you think! Ooh, Fruity Ooh, Chatty 20:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If my opinion counts, I've always preferred that way of ordering the past characters. I recently gave List of past Neighbours characters another face lift, by making all the tables equal and adding a previous actors column. I also think it makes adding references easier, if they are ever needed. - JuneGloom Schmooze 23:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

So have I, this way it's so much easier to sort them. It's greatly reduced the page size as well. I think I'll probably make the columns equal next. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 00:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There really needs to be an option to sort by date or Duration as the revamp has made this page a bit unhelpful when searching for minor and obscure characters Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

How so? Surely you'd know the character's name first and foremost rather than the years in which they appeared? I suppose we could reintroduce the sortable tables. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 11:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Not always, there may be a character that someone will say "I know his/her face from somewhere", or "I know they were in a storyline from march 2003", etc., and since minor characters names are not always mentioned (or might be forgotten if they last appeared years ago), and since there are many minor characters every year, it makes sense to have the ablility to sort them by the date they left, so I would be in favour of a sort tab. Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I've implemented the changes, so now all you have to do is click on the box next to the duration column header to see them listed in chronolgical order.Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 22:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Unimportant characters

There are some one time characters on here which I think shouldn't be here. That is like adding Policemen and doctors and stuff. I think only past regulars should be listed. GrahamCrusty (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think it should go back to "Last appeared in" rather than "alphabetical" because it is better to show the most recently departed.GrahamCrusty (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not chronological order

Why are past characters of Coronation Street listed alphabetically? The other soaps past character lists are listed chronologically, and are much easier to navigate, alphaetical order works better when there is only a small list of people, but when it is such a large list I believe chronological order is better (Reli source). 20:47 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If you look further up the page you'll see the discussion I started way back when I implemented the format change. I realise my edit summary now seems hypocritical but the reasons behind it are shortening the article length (24,000 characters added just by changing a format is not good), and structuring the list in a way for easier navigation - i.e. no characters moving around the list all the time, they have one spot in which to sit. I personally can't see how much easier you could possibly make it. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 22:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It works better to have them listed chronologically, for example the most recent to leave, Sian Powers, some may just know her as Sian, not by the surname, and may not check the P section, they would find it easier to check the top of the list, whereas if searching for the like of Ida Barlow or Ena Sharples, they would know to look further down, all the other soap pages are written chronologically, so why is this the odd one out? I agree minor characters should be omitted, but why does the page have to be the way you want it to be? Surely a discussion or vote would work better, or do you own the copyrights of this page? (Reli source). 23:00 1 January 2012 (UTC)

All the other soaps haven't been running as long, so don't have as many characters or as many sections. We don't need 53 different sections, it's unnecessary. We're also not catering for simpletons, if they don't know Sian's last name and they can't find her they'll have to try other avenues, such as the template at the bottom of the page. It's not 'my way', I've actually happened upon this after about six months away, but I can't see a solid reason as to why we should change it, making it look like the others is not a good enough reason because in this case the circumstances are entirely different. Invite others to the discussion from Wikipedia:WikiProject Coronation Street if you like, they might see it from a different perspective :)Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 23:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

But why is it OK for you to just decide what way it should be, to just edit it, and then get all stroppy over someone else editing it? I thought Wikipedia was for everyone, but you've decided to make it yours and yours only, if you where on a jury would everyone elses votes and opinions be meaningless, because you are some spoilt child who always has to get your own way? (Reli source). 00:18 2 January 2012 (UTC)

URGENT format change needed!

Thank-you for agreeing with me, GrahamCrusty; Alphabetical makes no sense and like I said 4 months ago and you repeated a month later in the previous post, it would be much better to see all the past characters listed in order of last appearance on a single page, akin to the Emmerdale page. And I also agree that unimportant characters should be omitted (allthough those who did appear for more than a few episodes eg a recurring policeman, could be kept). But the move from alphabetical is the most urgent change needed and I hoped someone would have done it by now, as the way the page currently is makes trying to find a past character like finding a needle in a haystack, especially if you dont know their surname or you just want to see what characters appeared in a given year. Like I explained in my previous post, I dont have the time, Wiki know-how, or required level of interest and knowledge in Corrie (perhaps partly due to not being able to easily find out more about the soap's past characters and history due to the way this article currently is) to do it myself, so come on ,anybody, please do! (and soon!) It's a top British soap (my second fav after E'dale-which I follow obbsessively!) and it should have a top Wiki Past Characters page-there must be a fan out there keen enough to do it!! Nocrowx (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If others agree i could do it? D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There does need to be more of a discussion first before any changes are made. Nocrowx have you tried asking members of the Corrie WikiProject to join in the discussion here? At the moment only you appear to be in favour of the change (sockpuppets don't count). Also, I'm not sure how alphabetical order makes no sense? It works perfectly well here - [3]. - JuneGloom Talk 00:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

June, are you suggesting i'm a sock? Check my history or what ever but i've not made any unconstructive edits or done anything that could be taken as vandalism so don't know why you'd think that? D4nnyw14 (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No, not you. GrahamCrusty. I was replying to Nocrowx and it seems I didn't make that clear. Apologies for the confusion. - JuneGloom Talk 12:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, it's fine. D4nnyw14 (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I've decided I'm gonna revamp this article chronologically. It's annoying me so much now! I'll work on it at User:GSorby/List of past Coronation Street characters then once I'm done, I'll merge the histories. You all OK with that? GSorby – Ping 00:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No, work on it first, then allow editors to look at it and discuss it before you do anything. Not everyone will see this discussion right away. - JuneGloom Talk 15:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting a change to the Emmerdale model.

This article would be much better if it was as sophisticated as the Emmerdale list of past characters, where they are all listed top to bottom in order of their last appearance, divided into tables by year. And whilst on the subject, Emmerdale has a better main cast list too, as there is a previous actor(s) column. But does anyone have the time and skill to improve the Corrie lists? I hope someone does-For me the main problem seems to be working out the exact order of departure (never followed corrie that closely) and transferring the vast amount of characters from the current, alphabetical, lists. But someone must have enough corrie and wiki know-how to do it. So please do. It would look so much better and be much easier to navigate.

Nocrowx (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC) :)

Completely agree, having looked back through the history of this list, it appears it used to be listed chronologically, but one person made the changes and refused anyone else to revert it, Corrie fans do seem to be less enthusiastic than for example EastEnders fans. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is this article listed alphabetically?

It's so annoying, if it was a list of 10 characters, then by all means, alphabetize it, but I think the tradition of soap characters being listed chronologically works really well and should also apply to Coronation Street, makes it feel more historical having it listed by year. I've noticed some of the discussion on here is about people not having the time to make a chronological list, but I have copied an old revision to my sandbox [4] , which has departed characters from 1960-2011, unfortunately it only went as far as 2011. But 2012 can easily be added, please take a look at least, rather than just saying you want it changed. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the chronological list is much easier to use and looks better too. Other soaps use the the chronological list so this list should probably use the same format. I think the changes should be made, maybe you should start a discussion on the Coronation Street wikiproject to see what other members think. D4nnyw14 (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This article would work better if it were like the EastEnders list. Reli source (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I honestly believe having it ordered chronologically would be so much easier. If it's a lot of hassle to reconstruct it again by making it accurate then someone could work on it in their sandbox till it's completed. Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd

Page Vandalism

It's a mess though. There are years missing (2011, 2012) it just goes straight from 2010 to 2013. Did no characters leave during these missing years? It needs sorting or fixing.82.47.191.23 (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to change something, why should someone else have to clear it up? Either make the changes and stick with it or revert it back to how it was. It is unfair to expect other people to finish what you started.82.47.191.23 (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

If the page does not get sorted out soon, any changes could be misconstrued as vandalism. It is still a mess and incomplete.82.47.191.23 (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC) As the page has not been reverted and is also partly out of date, and has not been completed, this is severe vandalism and should be reported.82.6.210.166 (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The vandalism still hasn't been fixed. Trolls have attacked the page.82.6.210.166 (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It still has not been reverted or fixed. This is serious vandalism, yet nothing has been done about it.82.47.191.23 (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Article title

I have opened a discussion here to discuss the article title potentially being changed from "past" to "former" – feel free to join in on the discussion! – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 13:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Harry Payne?

Surely, worthy of mention? Gwladys24 (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gwladys24: Are you not capable of adding him? I suppose not, so I'll add him. – DarkGlow • 14:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I think they were asking as to whether to add him, rather than asking someone to add him...DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Chronological listing

I'm currently working on an offline draft to list the former characters in chronological order, with subheadings such as "Last appeared in 1960", to be consistent with other soap lists. Is there any objection to this format change? – DarkGlow • 21:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this change! Makes much more sense DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Personally I prefer an alphabetical list, but I suppose it would match the other British soaps. What is the inclusion criteria here? All regulars and recurring characters? - JuneGloom07 Talk 17:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I think so: for other character lists, it is characters that have appeared in more than 3/4 episodes or have made a big impact/ there is a lot of development DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@JuneGloom07 and DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Sorry, just seen this after I implemented the change! I trimmed a lot of non-notable characters from the early years but after a while (it got draining after 1990 ngl) I just ended up putting every single character from the former layout on. So there's quite a few redlinks, as there was a lot on the former layout. So I'll either create a redirect for them or eventually just remove if they don't have a section. – DarkGlow • 23:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think they will all need redirects. I'd only create ones for those characters mentioned in more than two articles, as a direct link will work fine. I only asked about criteria because of the EE list, which Danilo sort of mentioned above. There might have been a few less characters to include, but you'd already finished! - JuneGloom07 Talk 02:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I was very selective with the early years but once it got to the 90s I basically just included everyone that was already listed on the page – I'll definitely trim some in time; I'm working on doing the same on the Hollyoaks list offline atm, including ordering it chronologically like I've done with this one. – DarkGlow • 09:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: I believe User:Soaper1234 is also working on the Hollyoaks list and sourcing it too. - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It looks AWFUL. Expanding the page from twenty-six sections to an enormous sixty-three doesn’t make any sense. It’s so cluttered. All the other soap pages should be alphabetical, not the other way round. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 07:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Why thank you! Rudeness aside, my logic for using chronological listing over alphabetical is that it is a page relating to chronology: the whole point of the list is to list people that have left the soap at some point in time. So why shouldn't the characters be listed in the order that they left? If it was a list of cast members as opposed to characters, I would advocate for alphabetical listing. But it's not. And since the present character list is ordered chronologically, the same should be done here. – DarkGlow • 09:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It’s not rude to have an opinion you don’t agree with. It’s not reader-friendly. That’s a fact. Think about it from a non-fan point - you’re looking for a character who you know the name of but they don’t have a page. How on earth are you meant to find them in this mess? You can’t. If the show was on for twenty years, fine, but splitting it to over sixty different sections, a lot of them bare, doesn’t make any sense. And as far as I’m concerned, there isn’t any need for two pages at all, the characters and cast members for one tv show should be contained in a single article. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 18:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I think chronological is best, especially since the show is still ongoing. Thank you DarkGlow for making it! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The show will keep going though, and every year a new section added. The page length will become an issue, mark my words, and the solution should not be to drop certain characters from the list but rather reintroduce a more appropriate format that doesn’t bulk it out unnecessarily. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 18:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't it not be most recent first? That's what the other English soaps have.82.13.176.207 (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm gradually working on updating the lists to oldest to newest. So at some point, the lists will be consistent. – DarkGlow • 18:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I've just come across this discussion as I was doing some work on turning other soap character lists into A to Z. Obviously, the Coronation Street page used to have this format and it is currently deployed for Neighbours and Home and Away. I believe that the A to Z order would be the best way of ordering the pages as it is better for readability, in my opinion. I would be keen to get the opinions of other editors on this, and may possibly move the conversation to WP:SOAPS so that we can get a better consensus. I will also add though that I appreciate the work that you have done on this DarkGlow. Soaper1234 - talk 17:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I do prefer the alphabetical listing style. I have not thought about changing any list layout and just tend to go with what is already in place since changing them requires a lot of work. One minor issue with chronological lists is doing the work when multiple characters leave in the same episode. How do you verify it? Researching from the episode and working out which character appeared last. A news source is unlikely to mention the order of last appearance so a flimsy cite episode is required. It is easier to just add the characters into a A-Z list format. An example is the latest episode of Holby City where of 3 former characters returned as ghosts for only one scene. I had to watch the scene numerous times to determine order of last appearance. That was annoying. Hollyoaks have been known to kill off multiple characters in a single episode. What about when a family leaves together? To address Ooh Fruity's concern - I disagree that finding a character in any list is difficult since you can search the page on any browser.Rain the 1 18:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Elsie

This isn't a discussion but I thought I would add this on here as I think it is super cute: The first and last characters on this list are both called Elsie! How sweet :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)