Jump to content

Talk:Waterloo Road (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Categories

[edit]

Would it be better for this to be in Category:Television shows set in Greater Manchester rather than Category:Television shows set in Manchester as it currently is? Rochdale is not in Manchester (assuming the area is correctly defined as the city of Manchester) but is in the metropolitan county of Greater Manchester. Dunarc (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed this as the evidence is pretty clear that Category:Television shows set in Greater Manchester is more appropriate. Dunarc (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

[edit]

Three “wins” listed in the awards table for Best Actress (2014 and 2015) and Best Continuing Drama (2015) are dubious.
Adressing each one in turn…

Heather Peace (Nikki Boston): Best Actress in 2014 - Winner.

[edit]

Although not definitive, there is no evidence of this via any internet search, nor is it mentioned on the actors Wikipedia and IMDB pages.
Original entry added to wikipedia page by unregistered user 86.1.94.111 at 20:51, 6 April 2014 and incorrectly cited as TV Quick Awards 2007; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waterloo_Road_%28TV_series%29&type=revision&diff=603056083&oldid=603000055

Laura Aikman (Lorna Hutchinson): Best Actress in 2015 - Winner.

[edit]

Again, although not definitive, there is no evidence of this via any internet search and nor is it mentioned on the actors Wikipedia and IMDB pages.
Original entry added to wikipedia page by Wtarlooroadfan at 21:46, 8 March 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waterloo_Road_%28TV_series%29&type=revision&diff=650509625&oldid=650507482 and incorrectly cited as TV Quick Awards 2007; declared a winner by unregistered user 90.200.227.74 at 16:37, 10 May 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waterloo_Road_%28TV_series%29&type=revision&diff=661717603&oldid=661713546

Best Continuing Drama (2015). Winner.

[edit]

Again, although not definitive, there is no evidence of this via any internet search.
Original entry added by unregistered user 86.1.94.111 at 16:03, 21 August 2015 and incorrectly cited as TV Quick Awards 2007; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waterloo_Road_%28TV_series%29&type=revision&diff=677170088&oldid=675504940

The problematic citations of TV Quick awards are further discredited as according to the Wikipedia page when the publication ceased in 2010 so did the awards under that name. They were renamed the TV Choice awards and the winners from 2009 to the present day are listed on the wikipedia page. These record only a single win for Waterloo Road cast, crew or the series itself. (Best family drama: 2009)

Other awards checked:

  • The Inside Soap Awards wikipedia entry shows wins in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 for Best Drama, and a nomination for the same in 2015 (now added to the table)
  • The main Royal Television Society (RTS) awards again shows neither any wins nor nominations for Waterloo Road cast, crew or the series itself in the years of broadcast. The North West Regional awards however yield a previously unrecorded award for Ann McManus (Waterloo Road): Best Script Writer in 2010. Search for regional awards for Scotland again show neither any wins nor nominations for Waterloo Road cast, crew or the series itself.
I've had a look online and can also find nothing for the uncited awards. I've added tags to the IMDb sources as IMDb cannot be used as a reference per WP:CITEIMDB as it is a user-generated site like Wikipedia. I also ensured everything is linked only once per MOS:OL. Pinging @JuneGloom07 and Raintheone: as they may have some offline newspaper sources that mention the awards? – DarkGlow • 20:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I will look into this online. So far I have verified TV Quick & Choice awards for 2007-2011 that were marked.
  • TV Quick and TV Choice Awards 2007: Winners: [1]
  • TV Quick and TV Choice Awards 2007: Noms: [2] Winners:[3]
  • TV Quick and TV Choice Awards 2009: Noms[4] Winners: [5]
  • TV Choice Awards 2010 Noms: [6] Winners: [7]
  • TV Choice Awards 2011 Noms: [8] - All the above verified.
  • TV Choice Awards 2013: Noms: [9] - Nom is missing from article
  • TV Choice Awards 2014: Noms: [10] - Nom is missing from article
  • NTAs 2011: Longlist noms [11] Winners: [12] - 1 win verified, 2 longlist noms missing
  • NTAs 2012: Longlist noms [13] - 2 Noms verified, 1 longlist nom missing
  • 2014 Heather Peace ISA or TV Choice Win? - [14] - Never even nominated - The show was nominated for the TV Choice Best Drama award though [15] but lost [16]
  • 2015 Laura Aikman ISA or TV Choice Win? - [17][18][19] - Actress never even nominated - no mentions of a Best Continuing Drama award for Waterloo Road.
I think the answers all the question marks. Since the ones marked as dubious are not true, they should be removed now.Rain the 1 22:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal, January 2023

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was consensus to renumber Series 11 as Series 1, but no consensus to split the article.

I hope it causes no controversy for me to close the discussion, having put up the split notice and pinged editors, even if the proposal had remained undiscussed for four days beforehand.

The course of the discussion went to distinguish between series renumbering and article splitting. Let me deal with each in turn.

Firstly, series renumbering. To me, the consensus to renumber is definitive. In the discussion, editors noted the usefulness for Wikipedia reflecting the new series' numbering used by the BBC and other sites. While the production company seems to have used 'Series 11', the public-facing promotion at this time is reasonably clear, and it seems reasonable, as one editor suggested, for public promotion to guide the series numbering. I count one objection against series renumbering. And, of course, we can always change back to 'Series 11' if 'Series 1' overcomes 'Series 11' in the future.

Secondly, article splitting. This was more contentious, and while there was a majority to split (I count 9 supports to 3 objects, and one 'unsure'), several reasonable objections were raised. Firstly, it was worried that there wasn't altogether that much to say about the new series, such that any new article would resemble the current Waterloo Road (series 11) page. Then, the revival show alludes to characters and events in the original show, may continue to do so as the series develops, and the shows share the same premise.

On the other hand, it was noted that keeping the same article may prove confusing, or become cluttered over time, and that the new series has made only some references to the original show, with largely new casting.

An inspection of List of television series revivals illustrates that there is no global consensus for whether revived television series should be given a page separate from their originals: in the past, some have and some haven't. (Additionally, these shows on the whole do not have separate articles for each series, unlike Waterloo Road, offering no indication of what the renumbered series should be called)

Having considered these arguments, I think that there is no consensus for splitting the article at this time. If fewer future episodes will air than expected, or if plotlines continue to reference the original show, then the arguments for the status quo are stronger. If, however, many future episodes will air, and plotlines are original rather than referencing events in the original show, then it is more likely that today's consensus will be overturned in a future discussion.

Hopefully, some official announcement from the BBC about the future of the series once the seven released episodes run out should prove indicative and may be reason to revisit this discussion. There is a risk, too, that we may fall foul of WP:CRYSTALBALL by splitting the article before any such announcement, to my mind confirming that we should be cautious against affirming a consensus to split at this time, but leave the door open for a different outcome in a future discussion. _MB190417_ (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should split this article into 2 seperate articles like IMBD and the BBC official website?

The BBC is clearly marketing the series as a revival/A different show, starting from series 1 (And not 11 as our article has listed) wiith all new cast and branding [20]https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0djrc1t [21]https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0djrcrr

perhaps we should have
- Waterloo Road (2006 TV Series)
- Waterloo Road (2023 TV Series)

This avoids confusion on the fact there are 2 series 1s and make us factually correct and not list "series 11" which has never been mentioned in any official BBC press release.

it would also clean up the article Andrew1829 (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. While I suspect that the BBC's renumbering of the series is primarily to attract audiences unfamiliar with previous series, it would help make the article easier to navigate given its current length (especially if the series is renewed), and certainly doesn't feel too awkward given the largely new casting. Also a note to say that I've added the 'split' tag on the article page and will now notify some contributors (see WP:SPLIT). _MB190417_ (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010:@Soaper1234:@WikiEditor73:@GrexHarmony:@DBD:@Tiffy0900:@Wormwell:@WaterlooRdBeast:@MediDude4345:@Lawsj123:@Butlerblog:@Onel5969:@Matthew R Dunn:@AscotLEE:@Pbassett:@Dl2000:@Croxley:@CobraWiki:
Pinging you as you have been involved in either this article or related ones that would also be split (episodes, characters) _MB190417_ (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the same reasons given above. GrexHarmony (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Revivals, reboots, and 2nd runs are not the same show. Putting shows together in a single article with their extended or rebooted versions usually leads to confusion with infoboxes and various MOS sections. Better to split it. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above - IMDB and BBC are treating the revival as an entirely new show and not a continuation of the original version (the 2006 version is now titled "Waterloo Road (2006-2015"[22][23] and the 2023 revival is titled either "Waterloo Road"[24] or "Waterloo Road 2023-[25]) so makes sense to follow suit. –Davey2010Talk 21:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure. I'm torn. Whilst I understand the points made above, a revival to me suggests that there is a lack of continuation except the name and basic concept. Characters and stories (Donte and Chloe, their baby, Kim's son etc.) from the previous series have continued into this series. I also wouldn't be surprised if we see some other characters from the first series in future series too... I'm open to hear more on this. Soaper1234 - talk 21:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think the sources are reasonably clear. Not being paper, we can always change if the sources change long-term. DBD 22:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The BBC have marked it as Series 1 because of the fact that it is a soft-reboot, none of the previous characters have been returned, and it looks like a completely different show within a completely different show within the franchise. Personally, I think differentiating the two would have a significant positive impact, to avoid any confusion, but still has links to the previous series. Whilst the show has links to Waterloo Road, it is now a totally different show, with totally different plotlines, all but two cast members returning. I would personally consider this a spin-off. Whilst former characters are returning, we've seen this in spin-offs of other tv shows, to keep it in the spin-off genre, whilst also tying links to the former program. I think this would be a really good idea.(talk) 22:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The BBC refers to the revival as a separate show so we should too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.48.11 (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Against To me, I see it in the same vein as Doctor Who, the 2005 series which is clearly marked differently from the original 1963 series is still a continuation of the show, whilst also being a soft reboot akin to Waterloo Road. Both parts of Doctor Who are listed under the one page but clearly marked as Season 1 (1963) and Season 1 (2005), this would ideally work with Waterloo Road where both aspects would be covered, highlighting the new season as Season 1 as the BBC have marketed it, whilst also maintaining the history of the show. Despite it being shown as a new show - likely to attract new audiences - there is a clear and direct continuation with Kim Campbell, Donte and Chlo Charles, Janice Bryant appearing, multiple references to the early series and likely future appearances by other previous cast members. 2A02:C7F:5116:8D00:D1FC:CEBD:1A5C:D423 (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on alternative: I think your excellent contribution leads to the point that we can separate the question of series renumbering from article splitting. As you note, Doctor Who maintains separate entries (1 and 2) for episode lists from the original and revived shows, even if the original and revived shows share the same main article (Doctor Who). Editors at Doctor Who dealt with the renumbering of series by having what I think is confusingly two similarly-titled articles, Doctor Who (season 1) and Doctor Who (series 1). Probably Waterloo Road (series 1, 2006) and Waterloo Road (series 1, 2023) would make more sense if the article splitting is ultimately decided against, but we think that the series renumbering is still a good idea. _MB190417_ (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Against The new series is a continuation of the old one and should maintain the same article 82.23.67.171 (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC marketing it as Series 1 doesn't really matter, it's only because they are trying to diferentiate the show with the audience to the original. Wall to Wall who make it have slated it as Series 11 as have many of the actors in it (listen to the official podcast on BBC sounds) and also the media releasing the DVD in March. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Waterloo-Road-DVD-Angela-Griffin/dp/B0BN6KXRS4/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3SFWFM1OX2UL&keywords=waterloo+road&qid=1673089229&s=dvd&sprefix=waterloo+road%2Cdvd%2C74&sr=1-1. Honestly though, I'm fairly indifferent but i'd day keep as is for now and see what happens as it progresses beyond the episodes release so far — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.142.189 (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change numbering, keep single main article, split characters article looks to be the way forward. Currently, a split 'new series' article would be the same as Waterloo Road (series 11), so let's not do that. The question of what to rename that article to is... something to ponder, though. Waterloo Road (2023 series 1)? U-Mos (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After updating List of Waterloo Road characters I'm changing my mind about splitting it, but it at least for now uses "series 11". How to avoid confusion if we move away from that? There are only five crossover characters (and only two with ongoing roles in both series) so it should be possible, but worth discussing. U-Mos (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You only have to take a look at Wall to Wall's clapper boards and scripts to see this is Series 11:

https://i2-prod.dailystar.co.uk/incoming/article26368486.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200c/2_adamthomas21-1.jpg

https://i2-prod.dailystar.co.uk/incoming/article26368454.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/1_JSR_MEN_020322_Adam_02.jpg

They have referenced the previous Rochdale site, previous characters reappeared and mentions such as Budgen and Kim having baby Dexter. The BBC marketing it as a revival does not mean it is not a continuation, which it clearly is. I say keep it as Series 11, at least for now and see what happens going forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.142.189 (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I agree with all the support comments above, IMDB and BBC are treating the revival as an entirely new show and not a continuation of the original version etc. its got totally new branding, logo, location and cast (barr 2 and 2 guest). I think lumping it all together will cause congestion and confusion especially for new viewers. the show has been set up in a way to be completely independent of the original that is why they separated the iplayer pages and marketed as series 1 (even if they may have filmed under the code name of season 11) Andrew1829 (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Series re-renumbering, March 2023

[edit]

It would now appear that the BBC are now referencing the new series as series 11 now and not a new series 1: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006t1p7 take a look, both waterloo road pages merged together now and the new series re-listed as series 11. iPlayer now showing new series as series 11 too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.31.145.194 (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How interesting, and seemingly definitive. So I've been WP:BOLD and undone the moves to Waterloo Road (series 1) and Waterloo Road (series 11), as the basis for the move is now void. Feel free to discuss below if anyone objects. U-Mos (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with the series renumbering, and thanks to @U-Mos for effecting it. A minor point: I'm not going to reintroduce the partition unless someone else agrees, but I thought the episodes table should still distinguish between original and revival series (see here). An IP user removed the partition in the table in this edit, but given the long gap in transmission, I think keeping it is justified. _MB190417_ (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing refs

[edit]

@MB190417: when you removed content back in January you caused numerous ref errors by removing named refs that are still used elsewhere in the article. Could you please go back and try to resolve these errors? -- Fyrael (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fyrael, thanks for the notice; I didn't realise this, and I really appreciate it as it wasn't something I would have thought to check after a transclusion. It seems that the issue wasn't removing named references, but rather that the transcluded section I added (discussing the critical response to the revival series) used named refs that had been defined elsewhere on the transcluded article. The transcluded section has been expanded significantly, so I have removed the transclusion and simply added a 'Main article' link. _MB190417_ (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Coulson casting reports

[edit]

Indagate has reverted the inclusion of newly reported information that Lindsey Coulson has been cast as the Headteacher in series 15. Let's be very clear on the circumstances here, as it's a situation that in my view leads to misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy and counterproductive results:

  • Coulson's casting has been initially reported by The Sun, an unreliable source. In itself, this is indisputably not valid for inclusion in the article.
  • The Sun's reports have been picked up by Digital Spy, a reliable source for entertainment and popular culture. The report is therefore WP:VERIFIABLE through this source.
  • Neither the Digital Spy source (excepting its headline), or the wording I introduced to the article, claim that Coulson has definitely joined the cast, which is appropriate due to The Sun's unreliability. Nevertheless, even if the reports turn out to be false, their occurrence has been covered by a reliable source and therefore warrant inclusion in the article.

It is certainly true that Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, and there is WP:NORUSH to, for instance, add Coulson to List of Waterloo Road characters prior to a clear announcement of her potential role, but there is also no grounds to remove the reliably sourced information that her casting has been reported. This information should be restored to the article. U-Mos (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing instead of reverting again, a reliable source saying that an unreliable source is reporting something is still them reporting an unreliable rumour, the reliable source is not confirming it themself, there's no need to include unverified information as we have no rush to include it, can just wait until confirmed. Indagate (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the subject is the report. That is verified and reliably sourced. No one is suggesting that Coulson's casting has been confirmed. If you'd like to tweak the wording to say something like "unconfirmed reports" then you are welcome to do so; what you should not be doing is removing reliably sourced information. Imagine this was something higher profile like a new Doctor Who casting, and see how rumours that turned out to be false remain appropriately covered at Thirteenth Doctor and Fifteenth Doctor. U-Mos (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the report is unreliable, it's not been verified by a reliable source just because it's reporting it, if it's not confirmed then there's no need to include it in WP at all, can wait until it's confirmed. The information is not reliably sourced so shouldn't be included at all right now. Just because a reliable source wants to report on rumour, doesn't mean WP should, WP:NOTNEWS. Doctor Who shouldn't include a rumour reported by The Sun either, regardless of it's reproduced by a reliable source. Indagate (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So by this logic, we'll have to delete Coverage of the Hillsborough disaster by The Sun? U-Mos (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely irrelevant and not following logic at all. Indagate (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an article based upon reliable sources discussing reports from the same unreliable source, it's entirely relevant. I'm going to take this to WP:3O now. U-Mos (talk) 14:44dia , 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
Wikipedia articles do not include breaking news: it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors. Even though the Digital Spy accurately reported that The Sun had published the info, it does not ensure the fact-checking of the actual information— it is only reliably reported that an unreliable source (for our purposes) has reported this rumor. When a reliable source carries the verified, fact-checked information that Lindsey Coulson has been cast in the role, that is the appropriate time to add the information to her biography. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waterloo_Road_(TV_series)&oldid=1246977460"