Talk:Nancy Hayton

Sources

[1][2][3]RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 02:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• [4] - Jaci Stephen takes a dig at Nancy's hair.RaintheOne ^BAM 01:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• The Frank archive link - [5]

Infobox name

The characters name is now Nancy Osborne, which is clearly stated in the very first line of the article lede. The E4 website corroborates that this is her corrct name - which let us not forget is the official Hollyoaks site - and as per the Manual of Style which relates to infoboxes:

• The template should have a large, bold title line. Either a table caption or a header can be used for this. It should be named the common name of the article's subject but may contain the full (official) name; this does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title, but falling back to use that (with the {{PAGENAME}} magic word) is usually fine. It should not contain a link.

(My emphasis)

There is no reason to keep insisting on the incorrect character title which is patently different to that used in the article. The article explains that Hayton was a previous name - before marriage - which explains the discrepency between the article name and infobox and name used in article space. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

She has been credited as Osborne since last year. But she has been credited as Hayton for a longer period in comparison. The text you just quoted at me suggests common name is better - that could be Nancy Hayton and a google hits table would help any decision. I think it is just house keeping matching it to the title - using the common name of the character where the basic information is kept. She is named Osborne now, but I can watch a couple of years worth of episodes back and she is credited as Hayton. The fiction exists as a whole.. the official Hollyoaks website does not have special weight on Wikipedia, it is just a primary source. I would also like to remind you that you begin a discussion prior to making the change. So you making the change and telling anyone who disagrees to take it to the talk page is classic wiki gaming.Rain the 1 09:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Jessica Fox has been appearing as Nancy since 2005 and she has only been known as Osborne for a year. As Raintheone said, the Hollyoaks official site is only a primary source and does not commandeer the names of pages on Wikipedia. Nancy Hayton is the common name. George^Ping! 10:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, please Rain. Pay attention to previous edits, not just the ones you disagree with. If consensus goes against me, that's fine, but first we have discussion. Then we make the change. Ironically - you already know this, because you've mentioned that in your recent edit summary. What you fail to note though is that the stable version was the Nancy Osbourne version, which has been in place since at least February 2012, and was only changed to Hayton by an IP address in this edit here - which is dated 7th July 2013.

You will note that in this edit dated February 2012, Rain attempted to change the infobox from Osborne to Hayton - only to be instantly reverted. It has been stable at Osborne since then. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Hayton is the character's WP:COMMONNAME. The majority of her storylines have occurred while she was called Hayton and the new surname has only been used for a short time. I think it would be best to leave it as it is and review at a later date. - JuneGloom Talk 19:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's a hits box for comparison though:

Source	Hayton	Osborne
Google (without Hollyoaks)	205,000	6,420,000*
Google (with Hollyoaks)	33,300	56,300
Google News (last 30 days)	0	5
Google News (total archive)	32	3
Digital Spy	36	47
HighBeam	10	8
Daily Mirror	0	1
Daily Mail	8	8

* – A vast majority of these results are for women with the same name, such as the American news anchor.

I am hugely amused by the above comment: "I think it would be best to leave it as it is and review at a later date" If you had been paying attention to the article, or even to my comments higher up, you'll see that "to leave it as it is" would in fact be the "Nancy Osborne" state - which is how it was, quite happy, for nearly a year and a half. Seventeen months. Not three days. I mean - did you even bother to read my comments, or check the article history? I even included diffs for you to follow to make it easy.

Consensus seems to be for change, but you all need to understand, and pay more attention - this is change you are agreeing to, not keeping the original version stable. I don't much care about what the article is called - once everybody is in agreement - but what I do care about is the apparent insistence that I'm the one trying to change the article from the stable version, when that is not the case. Change was introduced which I questioned, and from looking at the diffs, (which none of you seem to do,) I am also the only person who advocated discussion and use of edit summaries - not counting Rain, who misunderstood the situation from the word go, and accused me of wiki-gaming - unintentionally falling victim to hte very same thing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Well obviously no one noticed. Two additional tuned up editors have replied here and I am in no doubt had it been spotted earlier - it would have been corrected. Some things will go under the radar when you are busy expanding and creating articles most of the time. The only disadvantage is that vandals and soap fans sneak on when you are busy generating more good work and think they know best. Not to worry, it has been brought to our attention now. Better late than never. Sorry for accusing you of Wiki gaming too - I now realise that you genuinely thought it was meant to be that way because it said Osborne for ages. Easy mistake to make I guess - glad you explained yourself fully, I understand now. I did not check the article history, because I just know it was meant to be Hayton. I know that is not very good - but it is trivial and I knew I was correct. When you know you are right, why bother wasting time comparing differences. Nothing missed really as it was just IP's running the show - we took our eye off the ball. Sorry and I hope you feel content enough to carry on with the good work. Never nice when people are unwelcoming, happy editing alongside each other Chaheel. :)Rain the 1 23:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Page title

I don't watch Hollyoaks so I don't know, but was User:Tinamckintyre23's page move valid? Is this character truly better known as Nancy Osborne? –anemoneprojectors– 14:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Her common name is Nancy Hayton. Please could you move it back? George Sorby 16:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I am against the name "Hayton" and prefer the correct character name of "Osborne", it is quite obviously a contentious issue and needs discussion prior to any move. I tried moving it back myself, but it isn't working. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the page back to proper title per the above discussion and WP:COMMONNAME. George Sorby 20:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens - this Tinamckintyre23 is a sockpuppet and only moved the article to annoy three editors they keep returning to annoy. This discussion is not really needed. Unless we want to keep feeding the sockpuppet.Rain the 1 23:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I had a look on the talk page to leave a messaage, and noticed a sockpuppet comment, but that's not such a rare thing on a page filled with other warnings. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Didn't even realise there was discussion of the title on the original talk page (i.e. here), if I had I'd have not even bothered. I was assuming good faith but I'm not sure I ever should with that particular user. –anemoneprojectors– 08:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

?

"In the character's early stages, she was portrayed as a less conventional character compared to the rest of the Hollyoaks teenagers." What does this mean? I can't find it anywhere else in the article, I was wondering if someone could please explain so that we can clarify the sentence? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)