Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Coronation Street

Started this project

Ok, i've started this. Hopefully there will be some interest. The project page still needs a lot of work. Any ideas for improvement, feel free to put them here.Gung adin ♦ 16:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal on changing templates

I would rather use "infobox soap character" on the articles, rather than "Coronation Street character" template, to my opinion its better.

The generic soap opera ibox has far greater restrictions on family fields, which would result in a lost of lost info. What precisely do you think is better about it? Frickative 17:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now what?

I have been through the Coronation Street template, and over half of those articles have not much notability at all whatsoever, even characters like Ken Barlow aren't notable, it would be a real shame is all of them got deleted, wouldn't it? Maybe the List of characters article could turned into something like the recurring and minor characters article? But then we'd need a guide for the list instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I love energy drinks! (talk • contribs) 08:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As politely as possible, what sort of notability criteria are you applying to consider Ken Barlow, one of the most iconic figures on British television, as being unnotable? Frickative 09:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that in spuriously tagging all those articles as non-notable, all the valid improvment templates have been removed. I would respectfully request that you revert yourself, rather than force another editor to spend upwards of 20 minutes doing it for you. Frickative 10:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what I love energy drinks! is on about, Ken Barlow article could be vastly improved with stackloads of references to prove notability --Dodgechris (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major clean up needed?

After all this.. . I've been trying to save some articles for corrie characters, but it takes so much time. I have only really helped John Stape, Tony Gordon and Darryl Morton (Before it was merged) those articles needed improving and notability added. I added to other articles too as I didn't think they should be deleted.

The subject I want to adress now is this dodgechris, I don't know what this user's agenda was, half the time it seemed like he was helping the other creating problems and losing articles, he also edited and merged in bulk loads without discussing it. Now it turns out the user is a wiki sock puppet that has been at it for some time.

What should we do now? Raintheone (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very disappointed in DodgeChris, because it seems he never stopped using sockpuppets, and I stupidly helped his main account get unblocked the first time, but I will be doing no such thing again. When things didnt go his way, he'd use a sock to vandalise and make changes, then sometimes even reprimanded his own socks on his main account for the vandalism. But although he did some good edits, he caused far more harm than good and has made a lot of mess. No doubt he'll be back with his many sockpuppets, anyone with an IQ above 50 can spot them, which possibly explain why he doesnt realise how blatently obvious all his socks are! Somewhat more worringly, he uses his sockpuppets to have conversation with himself, such as in the conversation above, where out of the three users there, only Frickative is not Dodgechris!

I have to be honest that although I made this wikiproject, I dont watch many corrie articles. when I edit here (which is less and less these days) I tend to edit eastenders stuff, so I havent seen the full extent of the trouble he's caused. If he has done something that you disagree with, best thing to do is revert if it's not controversial, or bring it up here so we can decide on what to do. Of course it does take time to improve the articles, but even if you're just collecting sources, that is a help. A paragraph or two can be added daily or when you have time, and slowly they will start to improve. or storylines can always be condensed - a major problem with corrie character pages is overlong storylines.GG ^Moan 12:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main problems he created was deleted character articles and merging them where he pleased. The article on Daryll Morton was fine, but merged it into a article he created called The Morton Family. That Daryll article had sources, indeed the rest of the morton family did not, I don't think I can revert whats been done to those articles now. I will also try and shorten storyline sections down aswell, they are really long. Raintheone (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It surprises me that noone raised concerns as to this behaviour at an earlier stage, before any such destructive damage (even if in good faith) was done. What makes the matter worse, as noted above, is that any changes made by this user where outside community consensus, and thus, any records of changes for reverting or rectification would on the majority need dealing with by reading through the contribution history of this user (where it is not already obvious). The example of "The Morton Family" article is one which I have had difficulty understanding it's purpose, given the content prior was included in each of the character's own articles; although, I don't see this being too great an inconvenience to rectify.

Although I was involved with Gungadin when the wikiproject was formed, I regret that I have not given greater time to improve the state of the articles, and this incident (which appears on a larger scale than I had before been aware of) has indeed added a greater workload to those who take it upon themself to fix what has been done. Although the user is on another indefinate block, I would still keep an eye on things due to past behaviour of sock-puppetry, and I am sure any behaviour of this kind would not be too difficult to miss. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Morton family article he made due to a suggestion on the list of minor charcters talk page. I dont think that was a bad idea - having a small amount of OOU info about the family, then in universe character bios on each. But they have since been re-merged into the list anyway, so that problem has been solved already. He and his socks put a lot of character pages up for deletion, then he would vote on each AFD with several socks, sometimes with different votes to keep or delete. I cant work out what he was hoping to gain by that!

He's also made unnecessary disambiguation pages. For instance Ken Barlow is now a disambiguation page after he moved it to Ken Barlow (Coronation Street) and all the many pages that linked to Ken Barlow now need to be disambiguated to redirect to the moved page! I think that should just be moved back to Ken Barlow instead actually. The other use of the name is a basketball player, who was already disambiguated using a template on the Ken Barlow page anyway - common practice when there are only two uses and one is more notable.GG ^Moan 14:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this might prove useful... All credit for the idea goes to the EastEnders WikiProject, where I think it proved an excellent and invaluable tool in improving character articles en-masse. Hopefully it will be similarly helpful here. Wrt Dodgechris' mass merging of articles etc - while it was a PITA to keep track of what he was merging where, when and why, on the whole I think the merging of the past character articles is a good thing. Obviously any time anyone wants to re-write any one of them out-of-universe and asserting notability, it's no problem to re-instate a full article rather than a merged subsection... but for the time being, past characters had been being redirected fairly regularly to the List of past Coronation Street characters - which obviously preserved no content. As it is, most of the articles didn't assert any notability in any way deserving of a full article per WP:FICT, so I think the merged articles are mostly fine until such time someone wants to improve an individual one. Especially when there are so many issues with the present character articles... Frickative 13:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation cleanup

I've been a bit bold and moved the table to a separate sub-article underneath the talk page, /Operation cleanup. A working title at the moment, and maybe the article itself could be further developed to sit properly within the wikiproject, taking an active role in the project's development. However, I simply felt that if it is to be used as intended (which is great), then having residence on the talk page isn't the best idea. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Coronation Street

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Just thought I'd flag up the fact that User:Magioladitis is intent on unilaterally changing all the Coronation Street character infoboxes to the generic soap opera ones, despite the fact the only agreement on the matter came from our favourite user DodgeChris. Discussion is here. Frickative 14:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying vandal, possibly DodgeChris

Please look out for any changes to Corrie characters' duration and first and last appearances. We have a very annoying vandal who has literally been here years, known here as User:WJH1992, though he's had scores of other accounts and ips. This user has been incorrectly altering dates and durations on EastEnders characters for a very long time now, and they can never seem to get him indefinitely blocked. Interestingly, WJH1992 has been linked to DodgeChris! So it could well be the same person. I just undid a lot of his alterations to character durations and dates, but if you see this happening again, it's most likely this tosser trying to add false info, so revert or bring it up here so we can confirm the dates.GunGagdin ^Moan 16:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add User talk:92.235.125.183 to the list. I just gave 5 warnings. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's times like this when I wish we had an admin seeing over these soap articles. It makes getting this guy's socks blocked so much easier.GunGagdin ^Moan 17:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging Corrie talk pages with Wikiproject banner

When we first made the project, Bungle and I discussed making a Corrie wikiproject banner and tagging the talk pages of all Corrie articles. This is something that I think needs to be done, as it will draw attention to the project for new users and just make it more accessible. It was done on the EE project by a now inactive member, but I dont have any experience in doing this, so if anyone knows how, I would appreciate some help in making the template and tagging. Thanks GunGagdin^Moan 15:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically the banner which says it is part of a wikiproject and what rating/class it has? I did this for Emmerdale and had all the articles tagged Stub, Start, B class etc (which as of a few months ago, is what was used to determine current quality). I think it would be nice to have a similar rating for corrie articles, and maybe get a few character articles up to at least GA standard. I'll have a look into it and just duplicate what I did with Emmerdale, assuming noone has any objections to that? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking about the generic banner that linked to the wikiproject, but the class rating is probably more important, so that would be great if you could do something similar to what you did with Emmerdale. Now that character Corrie pages are starting to get a steady stream of improvment and they are not all stubs and plot summary, it would be nice to be able to rate them. I think, if we can all agree on an article, we should possibly nominate and choose one and all collaborate to make it a GA. Do you think that could work?--GunGagdin^Moan 18:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you meant? It would appear, through my own bad recollection, that I actually set this up along with a WP rating system some time back, and that it wasn't fully implemented into articles. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's what I meant originally, but I think a rating system like you suggested would be better. sorry for late response btw, I only just noticed this.GunGagdin ^Moan 18:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

billy christopher platt Blaine summer ryan 109.78.246.137 (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation Street characters

Does anyone have any idea what's the reason to have List of past recurring and minor Coronation Street characters? They are already

I think we have to put the characters in the correct article and then delete the article or convert it to a disamb page. An AfD has been started here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of past recurring and minor Coronation Street characters.

Sorry for coming here AFTER the AfD but when I checked the Talk page of these articles, I didn't find any sign of the Coronation Street Project so I informed the Soap Opera project instead. A sock puppet of Dodgechris started the AfD. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check also this nomination I did: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of residences in Weatherfield. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the List of past recurring and minor Coronation Street characters page is unnecessary. It's arbitrary and inherently POV. It's my understanding, however, that since the AfD has been opened, rather than simply discussing it and merging as necessary, it's now necessary to wait for the deletion process to be completed before any action can be taken. That said, are nominations made by a block evading sockpuppet even valid in the first instance? Frickative 17:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Now AfD is closed for the List with no consensus. I was a bit bold and moved many characters to the appropriate list. Many of them are not recurring at all. They appeared for less than two months in the show. What's next? Should we complete the merging? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any sense in leaving the article populated with just a scant handful of characters, so I would say by all means go ahead and complete it. One thing to note, though - could you update the redirects pointing to the article as you go? Otherwise there's going to be a significant number of redirect pages navigating to the wrong place :) Frickative 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try to do it. After that I'll remain an empty article. Then what? -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is not orphan (almost) an empty. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only info in the article now is copied&pasted straight from the lead of List of recurring and minor Coronation Street characters, so there's no value in retaining that twice over. Can it be removed and speedy deleted for no content? I can't see that it would be of any use as a redirect. Frickative 02:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of character deaths from Coronation Street

Hi. I think List of character deaths from Coronation Street has to be deleted exactly as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of births, marriages and deaths in Brookside. Before sending it to AfD, I thought its better to inform you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded for deletion just right now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the infoboxes back?

I don't know how to do it and since they have all been changed it isn't as efficent for information. I much prefered the previous one but I'm relatively new to all this so please could someone try and change them back? Preferably to one like they have on the Eastenders articles as the family section there is very informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex250P (talk • contribs) 23:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:00, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Who is still working on this?

I was just wondering which members of the project are still working on this project. I think this project needs a push again as many of the character related articles could do with a lot more work, older characters still have so much more information that is out there that can help improve them. I don't mind doing character ones but the main page is now in a bit of a mess and I don't think I'm good enough to edit such a big page alone so help there coul be good. Also some of the character articles such as Maria Connor could be promoted.Raintheone (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I try to help out when I can, but I dont get as much time on here as I used to due to my job, and EastEnders has always been my primary focus on wikipedia; in fact I dont even watch Corrie anymore, as I dont get time, so i'm not sure how useful I would be with regard to recent characters. I'm more interested in the classic characters anyway. A few months back I did quite a lot on Hilda Ogden and worked with Fickactive on the Betty Turpin page. Either of those can be good candidates for promotion with a bit more work, if that's what you're looking to do. Maybe a project collaboration? If an article is selected, a plan can be made, then people can focus on bits at a time. It breaks things up into managable chunks and people are more likely to take on the tasks that way. You can always choose an article, then approach the people that edit it and see if they want to collaborate.GunGagdin ^Moan 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the longer serving cast at the moment would be a good place to start there then. The article for Betty is a really good one so that could be the start point for it. I'll ask some of the poeple who edit the new characters articles a lot about that then and I understand about the time issue because I didn't really have a lot of time to help on here because of work recently but have a lot more free time from now on that is why I have started a lot more. The Eastenders articles are awesome though all look like a lot of work goes into them with plenty of research.Raintheone (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The EE project has been going for a lot longer though, and it benefitted from having just a few members who were willing to add the out of universe stuff and find sources. Even now, there's not many who actually work to make the pages more encyclopedic; most people are just interested in adding plot, or they are WikiGnomes and just do minor edits; WikiDragons are few and far between, and they are what's needed really, in order to get Corrie articles in shape :) Although, luckily this project has you and Frickative, and you have both done wonders with the Corrie pages. I do bits and pieces on Corrie, but, problem with me these days is, I tend to start OOU sections in articles with great intentions to finish, then I just never get around to doing it, like Alma Halliwell (I still have tons of sources saved in my favourites to expand that) :) Sometimes, when it's a majpr character with a mass of information out there, rewording and sorting out the good material is too much of a chore. That's why these days I like to collaborate. It's much nicer to work with people, get feedback on stuff etc. I'd love to add more on Betty, but thinking back, I think me and Frickative exhausted all the available sources on line. I think we would have to turn to books to expand that one, as all the character's notable storyline development is so far in the past, it's just not covered in recent sources.GunGagdin ^Moan 23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I try and update regularly, however there doesn't seem to be much effort or consistency. I have heavily updated Maria and Liam Connor and more recently Julie Carp through the whole reveal of her storyline I'm just wondering what else I could do? Alex250P (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Headings overuse

I hate the overuse of headings in storyline sections that have been creeping into many of the corrie character pages. I suggest we do what Eastenders is doing, and separate sections in heading by years if necessary, with backstory obviously discussing any events that allegedly occurred prior to intriduction. However, I strongly disagree with an overuse of any headings, and the short stubby headers just look ugly in some of the articles, like Gail Platt for instance.GunGagdin ^Moan 17:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with this. I've already repaired Sally Webster because of this issue, though it still doesn't quite flow as well as it could - but it looks much better already. Ooh, Fruity (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New template proposal

May I propose we start moving Coronation Street articles using {{Infobox soap character}} to {{Infobox soap character 2}}? The new infobox was created with UK soaps in mind, and was a merger from the now redundant {{Infobox EastEnders character 2}}. It displays full birth/death dates, has more family parameters and much more useful information a lot of editors have been itching to get into the articles for some time. Obviously, with so many articles using the current template, we'd need assistance and co-operation with the move. So how does everyone feel about this? Ooh, Fruity (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation Street articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Coronation Street articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor character lists name change

Futher to this discussion, I'd like to know what are the thoughts of those involved with the Coronation Street WikiProject about a proposed move of all minor character articles to yearly lists, removing the 'minor' tag and merging in major characters with little to no out-of-universe material and who fail Wiki notability guidelines. The set-up would mirror the changes made earlier this year to the EastEnders and Hollyoaks couterparts, which I know some of you regular contributors were involved with. What do you think? Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 19:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to what EE did? Yeah, good idea, though it'd be a lot of work,GunGagdin^Moan 20:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the workload can't be helped, and I can only speak for myself but I'm willing to do anything that's necessary. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 20:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should be done, like I said in the other discussion, not every non-minor character is notable. I did the EastEnders ones and it wasn't too much work, though I guess Corrie has twice as many lists as EastEnders does... Anemone Projectors 21:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea, it's got my support. There's many an article that could do with being merged and plenty that have no refs and the like. If the lists look like EE's then that's even better.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 21:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Anemone - I think the trouble will be what to put in some of the lists that haven't yet been created. I can't just open a page for a couple of links to main pages of major characters, can I? Well, maybe I could, if I put a short overview of the characters as is custom on EastEnders pages now. Either way, if not me then someone will build on them eventually.

Re. Rain - Absolutely, there are still a few stubs floating around, as well as purely storyline articles and completely unreferenced pages. It seems nineties characters are the worst for this, strangely. Yes, what I'm in the process of doing with 1960 and 1961 is representative of what I aim to do with the rest of them. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 00:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a good idea, the current multiple list set-up is a navigational nightmare. If there are years would have very little content, would it be feasible to do some of the earlier ones in five year blocks? Frickative 23:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the pages now, it's just a case of mass tidy at the moment. I think we should try to fit them into separate years first of all, then if we struggle for content we can look at other options? As it is, I haven't even attempted the 70s-90s yet. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 00:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah fair dues, the two I looked at at random were later ones (List of Coronation Street characters (1978) and List of Coronation Street characters (1982)), which only have one entry each, hence the merge suggestion. In retrospect, it should probably have been obvious they weren't done yet :). Frickative 00:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the last apeared in bit but the eastenders one doesnt look good as there isnt a box around the different cats eg Character Actor and Previous actor so i think the box grid should be on it to separate them out for easy reading instead of what looks like all on one plain background! but i support the idea if that is done, however i do like the pages as they are now with information about the characters as it pieces together the story of why they came into it and what role their character had or am i looking at the wrong pages? Bankhallbretherton (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not...entirely sure what you mean. Maybe you're thinking of List of past Coronation Street characters? What we're discussing is making this page and others like it look more like this, changing the title and merging in major characters. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 19:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episode numbers

What's everyone's opinion on episode numbers being included in the first and last appearance fields on character infoboxes? I've been introducing them for a while, but several editors have followed convention and removed them time and time again. My reasoning is that in this age of double episodes twice a week, putting just the date is no longer appropriate - especially for guest actors, who may appear in both episodes in one night, but the date makes it look as if they appeared in just the one. Ideally I'd like to introduce episode numbers, if known, to every Corrie character article - as I have been doing with the early lists, and now the nineties - which, as I said, have now been removed. So, your views? Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 20:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to also make it clear that current episode numbers can be referenced, as seen here - [1] Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 20:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's got an opinion? No-one at all? Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 20:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I know it's weeks later, but FWIW I like the inclusion of episode numbers. I know drama shows are a different beast to soaps, but for drama characters I always include date, episode title where applicable and series/episode number for first/last appearances. I'm sure you've settled it by now, but just a bit of agreement. Frickative 19:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not settled at all, so thanks for your input. In fact I think it's the same editor who has been removing them most recently. I just didn't want to revert it myself as though I own the place without getting a second opinion. Now I have that, I'll be more bold in reverting, directing them here to discuss the issue. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 20:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add to this that on my to do list is a list of episodes, ideally by year, so episode numbers could possibly even be linked to that year's page. Just an idea at the moment of course, me thinking out loud. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 21:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Businesses/residences

What does everyone think of List of fictional businesses in Coronation Street and List of Coronation Street residences? They're not really encyclopedic, and although I despise the term, I must admit they are just fancruft. They have no credible references and I don't think they add much to the project. If someone wants to transfer it to their userspace for personal uses (it might help someone editing perhaps) then fine, but neither list is needed here. Anyone agree? (or should that read, is anyone listening?) Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 22:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are both utterly useless and badly written right now. IMO of course. I think the business one has no place, no interest to anyone other than fans... The residances, it could be so different. Like all the buildings and stuff, there is scope. Like 1 one Corrie and Vera's cladding, The muriel inside Hilda's... it could have had so much out of universe info added for it, but it's just a list of in universe crap of who's lives here and there, so not encyclopedic.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 23:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree about businesses. Except for the Rovers, which has its own article anyway, none of them are notable in the real world. I particularly dislike it having a section at Coronation Street, it's pointless. I see what you mean about residences, there is a lot that could be done with it. I fear none of the frequent editors of those pages even listen to tags either. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 23:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youch, I think both articles are a prime example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I agree that the residences article could be salvageable, but it would need a complete re-write from the ground up, removing all the endless lists of who lived where when... which wouldn't leave any content at all, from what's there now. Thinking about it, it would probably make more sense to develop Weatherfield with any decent info on the residences. I'd be tempted to PROD both lists. Frickative 19:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking, I mean most of that is easily obtainable should anyone wish to incorporate it into another article, like Weatherfield as you say, or introduce an out-of-universe perspective - but even then, said user would have to give it a complete overhaul, and I can't see that happening in the near future. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 20:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention, I prodded both lists, businesses is up for discussion at the moment so feel free to take part :) Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 17:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so by consensus businesses has been deleted, any suggestions of what to do with the residences page now? Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 19:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:CS deletion

Template:CS deletion has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bsherr (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Lancashire as Wendy Farmer

Hey all. Quick request for help - I'm working on bringing Raquel Watts up to scratch, and have run up against conflicting sources about the year Sarah Lancashire appeared as the minor character Wendy Farmer. List of past Coronation Street characters has it down as 1987, as do the BFI and BBC to name but two. However, a piece in The Independent (primarily an interview with Lancashire) puts it in 1986. Just wondered if anyone knows definitively either way, or has any of the official Coronation Street companion guides which might contain the info. If not, I'll probably compromise at "the late 1980s." Cheers. Frickative 17:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed Raquel's page was very well-kept :) She appeared in one episode on 11 November 1987, she shouldn't really be in the past characters list she was that minor - but I added everyone listed in the book at the time. This comes from the official Coronation Street companion released for the 40th anniversary. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 17:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, thanks for your help! I guess guest characters played by main cast members earlier in their career are a bit of a special case - I've no problem with her being listed there. I'll amend the info in the Raquel article accordingly, thanks! :) Frickative 19:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Durations

Hi, i just wanted to suggest that we change duration rules. we only change the duration if a characters leave exceeds a calendar year (Jan.-Dec. in full). The eastenders project came up with this, and i think it would be a good idea to because some characters durations are confusing and inaccurate. So instead of this: 1961, 1962-2001, 2002-, it would be: 1961-. this would apply to EVERY character. recurring, regular etc... the only exception to this rule would be if they made guest appearances for one or two episodes. then the duration would have gaps. EX: 1999-2005, 2006, 2007 (With 2006 and 2007 being guest appearances). Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.3.102 (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it works fine as it is. To be honest, I find it quite misleading when within the article it says they left and came back, but the infobox says different. It just creates unnecessary problems, and I think such a change isn't needed when the project is still in such a state. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 22:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement drive?

Anyone fancy a bit of an improvement drive? According to the project page statistics, we have nearly 600 articles/potential articles in our scope, just two of which are GAs. This might be a ridiculous idea, but I thought we could make it a bit WikiCup-esque, with points for different achievements, and maybe give out a few Barnstars at the end? Obviously the main goal would be improvement of content, but with a little incentive along the way. This message is really just to gague whether anyone would be interested in such a thing :) Frickative 21:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea :) If I was online more I'd definitely be up for it, but even so I'm in full support. All characters are important, but I think the focus should be on current characters at the moment. A lot of them are almost entirely plot, and I can't imagine they would be too difficult to find online refs for. I'd do all I could to help! Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 15:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might just adopt this project as there's barely anyone active on it!!! I'm going through a lot of articles now and fixing them GSorby - Talk! 22:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also like this idea and will set aside some time to help out. - JuneGloom Talk 20:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I didn't notice this. I'd sure love to help! Like please make it happen. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 21:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses! I'm sorry I rather dropped the ball on this after suggesting it, I shan't do that again. Would everyone be happy to largely crib a points system from the WikiCup?

Featured article	Good article	Featured list	Featured portal	Featured topic	Good topic	New article	Did you know?	In the news	Good article reviews
100	30	40	35	15 per article	10 per article	15	5	10	2

All I've done here is drop a couple of categories it's unlikely we'd make any headway in (Featured Picture/Sound) and added in 'New article', which to my mind is really to encourage the improvement of list entries to the point of de-listification. Ideally there should be a category for improving an article without having to take it all the way to GA, but I'm drawing a bit of a blank on how to phrase that/what the points value should be, so any suggestions are very welcome. And does anyone have any thoughts on how long it should run for? If we can get this ironed out, I'll set up a dedicated Project page for it and invite all the other active WP:CORRIE participants. Frickative 13:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters

There is currently a discussion here which I believe is important. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 17:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC) billy christopher platt Blaine summer ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy christopher platt (talk • contribs) 17:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rovers Return Inn

Does this article really need need two identical photos? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed these problems for you. GSorby – Ping! 10:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Stubbs

I have unmerged this article because it is clearly notable with verified real-world content. Tellow (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karen McDonald

I've expanded the reception section on her article a fair bit, and hope to start sandboxing a development section [User:Eshlare/Karen|here] with a possible look at developing it to a possible Good Article. If anyone has any advice, improvements to suggest or resources that might help (for a start I'm not eligible for Highbeam) it would be really appreciated :) I'm aware the storyline section needs cut and re-written in places but I think that would be better to leave until the other sections are all up to shape. Eshlare (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing character article titles to the current names

Hello everyone,

I was surprised to discover that you're using the outdated character names as the article titles as that is supposedly described as their WP:COMMONNAME. In my view this is ridiculous, especially as those searching for the old name will be redirected to the page with its new title anyway. To say a character such as the newly-married Rita Tanner is commonly known as 'Rita Sullivan' is ludicrous considering the majority of people still refer to her as 'Rita Fairclough' anyway, which was arguably her most iconic name just as 'Betty Turpin' was for Betty Williams. If I were to propose you change the article titles back to the names they had years ago you would think it mad, and so is retaining names that no longer appear on the current end credits. The Coronation Street Wikia has adopted a much better approach to this issue as it updates the article title to the name currently in use and provides a redirect for those who may be searching for the character under the old name. Surely this is the most effective solution? Especially as both ITV and the media now refer to the characters with the new names and the list of characters is currently crediting them under names which they no longer have in the official end credits.

Thanks for your assistance and support in this matter and I look forward to contributing to the project. --ScouseScholar (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well you say that the media adopts the name given in the credits - but lets take Gail Platt as an example - Platt was still used after she married again to become McIntyre. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] - This is from the first page of google news search results. I certainly would not think it was "mad" to revert a name used years ago - if it was infact the most commonly used today.Rain the 1 14:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With that logic I suppose that would mean Betty Williams would have to be 'Betty Turpin' and Mavis Wilton would be 'Mavis Riley'. When those who type in the old name are redirected to a page with a new title it informs them that the article subject has now been re-branded. The WP:COMMONNAME policy is understandable in the case of Bill Clinton (Who still uses the abbreviated Christian name) and Mother Teresa whose real name is largely unknown, but in the case of fictional characters in an on-going series I feel it's more appropriate to keep them up-to-date, especially when the names that are retained are not nicknames or aliases but rather ones they have discarded in the fictional world of the programme. The past edit history of a page can still be accessed by Wikipedia users who need to know it by going to the redirect page with the previous name and getting it from there. Also, at one point somebody made the decision to change Becky Granger to 'Becky McDonald' and so it baffles me while one article is still 'Kylie Turner' and not Kylie Platt which is clearly her most commonly used name at the moment, same with Fiz Stape. There are also characters who we know will have their new titles for the remainder of their time on the show, such as Rita Tanner. Finally, I propose that a lot of the journalists who write articles about soap operas are accessing Wikipedia for the specific details, seeing the article titles with the old names and using them as such in their work, which isn't an extraordinary assumption and if true just goes to prove how the problem is exacerbated by something that can be simply remedied. The multiple attempts to change caption headings on pictures in the articles to the new names by the majority of users also suggests that there is a desire for the titles to be updated - it would also mean an end to moderators having to constantly revert those edits when often the users are doing so not to vandalise but purely to make the article reflect the current situation and be as up-to-date as possible thereby preventing a great deal of confusion. --ScouseScholar (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actors

Do actors such as Bill Tarmey qualify for inclusion in this project? Jim Michael (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name Changes. Common sense should determine "Common Name"

It has come to my attention that the policy WP:COMMONNAME is incredibly problematic when it comes to fictional characters, particularly in soap operas in which new married names are appropriated. The ending credits of the programmes' themselves are altered accordingly and yet many people seem to deem it necessary to retain the previous name, sometimes for years after the change has occurred. While in many cases I agree and understand why no action is taken, particularly as characters marry, divorce and change their names so swiftly nowadays, I do think a certain amount of common sense should be applied when choosing to retain the old names of characters who have taken on new aliases and are highly unlikely to change it again. Also, the popularity of the new name should be taken into account. In the case of Rita Tanner for instance if you type "Coronation Street Rita" into Google, it immediately suggests 'Tanner' over the previously used 'Sullivan'. This is because the new name has a more iconic status in the public consciousness and has come to define her identity relatively quickly. The media must also be taken into account as tabloids make efforts to use the most recent names (And before anyone states otherwise, you must understand that Wikipedia's responsibility here is vital as I know of many lazy journalists who will browse the site, see the article title and assume it's the correct name). While there are exceptions to this rule - EastEnders' Pat Butcher will forever be defined as that despite her final name being Pat Evans - there are iconic names which substitute lesser ones (Tanner/Sullivan is a good example and I would also argue quite passionately that so is Platt/Turner) and they must be recognised. Finally, it is Wikipedia's duty to provide accurate, up-to-date information and in many of the lists of soap opera cast members I can see characters listed under names they have not had in the main credits for not only months but years. If I read the current cast list, I see names such as 'Kylie Turner' and 'Faye Butler', these characters are not a part of the current programme as far as the makers themselves are concerned and also in the eyes of the viewing public for who the end credits are supposed to inform, Wikipedia is therefore providing inaccurate information in this regard. While WP:COMMONNAME works excellently for living people who may have nicknames or pseudonyms, for fictional characters in soap operas it presents issues in regards to no longer accurately defining the identity of the article in question. The numerous edits made by amateur members of the public to update captions to the recent name are surely a sign of what the consensus is and Wikipedia's duty has to be to reflect information accurately. I therefore suggest that articles such as this one and others are thoroughly reviewed and name changes are applied where common sense deems it necessary. Anyone searching for the old name is immediately redirected. Rita Tanner seems to qualify as a good candidate, as the name is more iconic than her previous one, Google searches rank it higher and she is highly likely to retain it for the rest of her time in the programme (Again, this is common sense.). It would also save time on having to revert edits of picture captions etc. by the vast majority of people who, rightly in my opinion, believe the characters should be going by the new name in many cases. I previously tried to make these points last year on the Coronation Street edits page, but I was ignored. Thank you, I would be grateful for your opinions. --ScouseScholar (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Character lists nominated for deletion

List of Coronation Street characters (1967), List of Coronation Street characters (1970), List of Coronation Street characters (1975), List of Coronation Street characters (1976) and List of Coronation Street characters (1977) have all been AFD'd (separately). It seems the reason is purely that there aren't many characters in each one. Is anyone able to expand or improve these articles? –Anemone Projectors– 09:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listing past characters?

Am I the only one who finds the list of past characters a complete nightmare. Eastenders and Hollyoaks are so much easier to navigate and it makes no sense that other Coronation Street lists such as the present character one is listed by arrival date but the past characters are listed alphabetically. Please discuss Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaflet for Wikiproject Coronation Street at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talisa Grady

The recently-introduced character of Talisa Grady is played by Samantha Power (actress), a page deleted four years ago after this AfD. It's definitely the same person. If she sticks around, we might try WP:REFUND. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Barnes

I'm not well-versed in 'The Street' these days... I notice however that there has been a mass of IP edits today to the above page, mainly, AFAICT, to the infobox, which are not borne out by the text & don't cite sources. They also lack edit summaries. No doubt editors have the page on their watchlists but it might be worth checking in the meantime. Eagleash (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwin family (Coronation Street)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldwin family (Coronation Street). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coronation Street characters (2017)

Can Rich Patel be added to the article with information about his storyline,[9] the man who sells cocaine to Daniel and asks Robert to launder money through his bistro?--Theo Mandela (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Phelan

Phelan is currently bundled with other characters, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coronation_Street_characters_(2013)#Pat_Phelan

Is he worthy of his page? Alligators1974 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to argue against new articles for soap characters, but I think i'll make an exception on this occasion. I think his media coverage and storyline involvement, as well as character development warrant a separate article. It would definitely benefit from a copyedit too. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New photos

If anyone would like to add any of the pictures to the articles - I have added more to this category of free images. They include Jack, Vera and Michelle now.Rain the 1 20:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leanne Battersby

I’ve just added a very brief paragraph to Leannes page, as her storylines hadn’t been updated since 2019, can someone go in and add more detail regarding the recent drug dealing storyline? Simon’s page looks to be up to date, but not Leannes. Copper1993 (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Rita Sullivan#Requested move 2 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rita Sullivan#Requested move 2 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]