Template talk:Coronation Street

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Coronation Street This template is within the scope of WikiProject Coronation Street, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Coronation Street and its characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the template attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Soap Operas This template is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion. Television This template is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. For how to use this banner template, see its documentation.

Changes explained

The previous tamplate served no purpose other than to link the names of the characters. The previous layout of where they lived and worked was too complicated, too big and not needed. I have compacted it, and it is now smaller and more efficient. Trampikey ^(talk to me)(contribs) 21:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it is more compact, the loss of the surnames of characters is rather disappointing. The surnames of most Coronation Street characters are as important as their first names - with many viewers associating with a surname rather than a first name (Barlow, Duckworth, Bishop, Cropper). I would consider putting them back. Ben 05:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Janice wasn't included so have added her - I have placed her between Ashley and Les because she was the first of the Battersbys to be introduced (working at the factory several weeks before Les arrived) Dippit 16:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the history will reveal she had been removed by someone else a couple of edits prior, probably under false information or accidentally.Bungle44 16:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats what I assumed. Probably someone assuming that she has left the programme when in fact she is only on a break Dippit 11:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also re-add Peter Barlow —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ant parker (talk • contribs) 22:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sonny, Jodie and Wilfred

Sonny does not have a character page so why link? Also, why don't we wait until the characters are actually on screen before creating links on the template Ben 23:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: two points - Why can't someone create a character page for Sonny? Eastenders does it all the time when new cast members are announced and Sonny is going to be involved in a big storyline with Sean. Plus he's been in the show for a while now.

Also, If you have not noticed, Jodie and Wilfred did make their first appearance Monday night in the 8:30 show. So they should be mentioned. i mean Holly Grimshaw is there and she's a baby.

When someone does create a page for Sonny, the article can be linked on the template. It's that a page for Sonny can't be created, it just means no-one has created one yet. The same goes for Jodie and Wilfred, as soon as they have pages, they can be on the template, but when they're still red links, there's no point. -Trampikey^(talk)(contribs) 20:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in response to your edit summary, I didn't remove your name, you just forgot to sign your comment. -Trampikey^(talk)(contribs) 00:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in response to your response, my edit summary was not aimed at you. Cheers. Ben 22:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New look template

Just thought I should put my thoughts down in a proper discussion rather than having edits reverted here, there and everywhere. Firstly I think that the new look template is extremely drab, although I understand that it has been done like this to present a benchmark across all British soap opera related articles. It would have been nice if we had been informed of such a large change by the original editor, or if editors or specific topics (such as myself for Coronation Street) were informed personally. It's all about communication at the end of the day. Secondly, I am of the opinion that some of the related topic links do need to have the full article title as opposed to a shorter, one word, line. Just what are readers clicking on when they click 'Humour'? I hope that we can rectify any differences that we may have Ben 19:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The piped links "Humour", "Storylines" etc. are easier to read and take up less space. I think it looks better like that. And I don't think it looks drab, the colours look more professional compared to the sick coloured template before! -Trampikey^(talk)(contribs) 19:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any WikiProject-endorsed navbox benchmark - I made the change to the navbox because it is consistent with other navigational boxes and I feel it looks more professional. I also don't think unpiped links in the Related articles section are necessary. The links are in a table that says "Coronation Street" at the top and I'd be more confused if, when clicking one of these links, I was taken to an article that was in no way related to the show. J Di 19:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a Change?

The template misses about 20 current characters on the coronation street roster, that are actually current characters. Wiki, The Mortons, Lauren Wilson and so on are characters that are staying in it and have as much right to be on there as Ken Barlow other soaps have every character in their own page, in this template. Why is this not the case, can I create seperate pages? Raintheone (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD a few months ago was in support of removal of individual character articles. I personally didn't fully support every article (I mentioned a couple that shouldn't have been in there), but I also couldn't defend against keeping the rest either as individual articles. Maybe you should say which recurring/minor character article/sections you think deserve their own page and give reasons for this, then we can see what everyone else thinks about that? Bungle ^(talk • contribs) 21:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Residences

I've added a new section for the template. List of Residences in Weatherfield.Its quite similar to a page on Eastenders. Its only briefly done and needs a lot more work on it. Hope you all like it. Cutekitten05 (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring and minor characters

I see that the recurring and minor characters have been enlarged with this template, though they are covered by the circular list, i suggest we either removed the links to the minor characters, Past characters and Past recurring and minor characters or just remove the recurring/minor characters altogether. 86.156.244.224 21:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the removal of all redirects. This is supposed to be a navigational template between articles and not parts of an article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Past characters

Are the past characters supposed to be in some sort of order? It looks like a jumbled mess. AD 23:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in order of first appearance. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 00:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be reordered to when they left. AD 00:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think alphabetical order would probably be more accessible - arrival and departure dates rely on knowledge of the show to navigate, and we should maximise functionality for all readers, not just fans. Frickative 00:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical would be better. Then I'd be able to move characters who leave. AnemoneProjectors 01:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to alphabetical. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 09:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical by first name would be best, as the characters are generally known mostly by that. AD 12:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on that...I think if it does change to alphabetical, then by last name would make the most sense - keeping families and related characters close together. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 13:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Brothers McGregor

Should the The Brothers McGregor be included in the spin-offs section? Its main characters originated in an episode of Coronation Street (although played by different actors). Dunarc (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]