Talk:Coronation Street

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Coronation Street is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 7, 2004.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Archive
Archives

Contents


[edit] Coronation Street overseas

This section is very good, but it really needs some references from reliable sources. I can find one or two on websites and in some print references, but any help would be massively welcome! Ben 13:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article

I think that this article is almost back up to featured article standard. A few more citations are required in places (particularly Coronation Street overseas and broadcast format). Later sections may also need to be reviewed, which I am happy to get on with when I find the time. What do others think about a possible F/A nomination? Ben 00:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching the progress of this article with interest in recent weeks, mostly in preparation to record a spoken version. In my opinion, it's time to nominate it: you have done an excellent job in improving all aspects of the article. In particular, for an article about a programme which is still in existence today, it is good to see that equal prominence has been given to the "old days" and more recent times: each of the five decade sections are of a very similar length and structure. I have not attempted to edit the article at all so far because, unlike you, I lack the relevant published sources (apart from 40 Years of Coronation Street by Daran Little); but if it goes for Featured article-nomination and any issues are raised, I shall try to offer some help in resolving them in order to get it back to the status we both feel this excellent programme deserves. Leave a message on my talk page if you would like me to look at anything or help in any way. PS. I will probably have a go at finishing the spoken article this weekend. If any substantial edits are subsequently made to the article to get it to Featured article, I would re-record the relevant bits later. Hassocks5489 13:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your comments. The only real major change will probably be in the opening parts of 1960s:kitchen-sink drama. At the moment most of the content is unsourced as it has remained in the article for a long time. Hopefully I will be able to try and find citations for the content, if not it may require tweaking here and there. I don't think that there is anything else all that major to be done, apart from consolidating some of the later sections, especially production staff. Any help would be gratefully accepted, I'm sure that there is a lot of information in the 40 Years of Coronation Street book about production staff over the years. Ben 20:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoken version added

I have added a spoken version of this article; see the link at the top. Hassocks5489 22:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Hassocks! Very well done with the spoken version, brilliant! Ben 22:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hilda Ogden

Fourth most recognisable woman after four people, this obviously makes her fifth, which is incorrect, the position she holds or one of the people preceeding her? Matt Zero 18:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Try rereading the section in question. BenC533 22:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Saying that doesn't really explain your point, no matter how many times I read it, there are four recognisable women behind which comes hilda ogden, making her fifth...Matt Zero 11:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you've done, I was just being a bit tongue in cheek. The correct title, as far as I am aware for the Queen Mother is 'Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother' so you've just counted 'Queen Elizabeth' as being a person in her own right, strange considering that the entire phrase 'Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother' hyperlinks to a single article. BenC533 21:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Story line and storyline

Browsing through the article I see that the generally used 'storyline' has been changed to read 'story line'. According to the OED Online, the noun 'storyline' is to be used in reference to 'the plot of a novel, play, film, etc.'. I have reverted as much as possible, but not sure if I've caught them all. If anyone spots one, could you please edit? Thanks! BenC533 03:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New character articles

I think these new minor character articles which are getting created is getting a bit silly now. With Emmerdale, a decision was made to create the article List of recurring and minor Emmerdale characters, which effectively elimiates the need to create an article for every small person who arrives or who is present, when the information is only relatively small. I'd propose an article of a similar nature being created for Coronation Street? The one for Emmerdale has been effective and could easily work with this soap. I believe this approach is used on various other television shows where there are manu small characters. Bungle44 10:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to agree DAVID CAT 19:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Whilst you're entitled to an opinion, I can't personally accept or understand it if no reason in any shape or form is given to explain your viewpoint, especially when a sub-system of my suggestion is now used on this very template to split the recurring characters from the main ones. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Due to developments in the last few months about Character articles, I suspect that it would be a waste of time creating more articles, esp. about minor characters. They would eventually be deleted (or 'redirected') but only once they've watched you waste your time. That's the kick. Bungle's suggestion is sensible. The JPStalk to me 23:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
But how would we differentiate between a minor character and a main character who has only just appeared?DAVID CAT 20:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
95% of the time, a character joining a soap who is in it for a long term (as a regular) will likely be publicised as such. As I said, it has worked fine for Emmerdale for the past few months, so there is no reason why it can't for Coronation Street (it'd certainly tidy the whole character article situation up a bit). Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who created the current "Recurring Characters" section, I think it would be a good idea to merge the current "Recurring characters" section into one page Ant parker 22:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, have your minor characters article as long as it doesn't have that godawful situation of a section with "main article: so and so" at the top. DAVID CAT 22:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
"as it doesn't have that godawful situation of a section with "main article: so and so" at the top" - Well, it makes sense to point people in the direction of the parent article..
I have gone ahead and made this article in response to the majority support comments noted above. Bungle (talk • contribs) 11:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Why have u turned them into minor characters, when they r major characters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.88 (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed a few weeks ago in an AfD. The majority vote was to merge short-standing characters as minor ones until they have gained a sizeable history on the show. Don't revert changes to the template without discussion. Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theme music

The theme music section lists the instruments as cornet, clarinet and double bass. David Browning is then credited with playing trumpet. Should he properly be credited with playing cornet instead? -88.109.76.231 12:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe David Browning may have actually played trumpet rather than cornet on the original recording, however I am unsure. David's trumpet playing produces a "rounder" tone compared to some other trumpet players, and could be confused with cornet [I knew David for some time in the 90's]. Roaringmouse 23:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding my above entry, here is a link that suggests that David Browning did play trumpet on the recording of the theme Roaringmouse 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
So, the Manchester Evening News (incorporating Wilmslow Express, see Roaringmouse's link above; apparently republished in the Daily Express) states that it was David Browning. However, this is disputed in the comments on that page, where two contributors state that they believe it was Ronnie Hunt. Ron Simmonds (jazz musician and journalist who died 24 October 2005) wrote in 1994 on Jazz Professional that it was Ronnie Hunt:
Stan Roderick sent Ronnie [Hunt] to deputise for him on a session one day, which turned out to be the record­ing of the signature tune for Coronation Street.
Both Browing and Hunt are stated to have played other TV theme tunes; it appears that both made a claim to this most famous theme. The main article here says, with a ref, that the theme has been altered slightly since the show's debut in 1960. The MEN articles seem to mean that Browning, who was a regular for Granada, recorded the original in 1960, and state clearly that he re-recorded the current version in 1964. Do any of the books cited in the article provide a definitive ID for the trumpeter? - Fayenatic (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
There was once an article for Browning, but it was deleted as an attack page. I looked at it, and no version of it contained any useful information whatsoever. DGG (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Hillman

Hi, can any experts on here advise which version of this is correct, please? TerriersFan (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It was both! It was a joint party--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

i love corrie becuase it is the best thing on earth and eastenders is but corrie is beter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.202.41 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New WikiProject for Coronation Street

A new WikiProject has been created for the soap here. Everyone is encouraged to enter their name for participation in an effort to clean and tidy up what over time has become a large mess of articles, both in articles that exist for the soap, and the sub-standard quality many are at. Hopefully, we can create some sort of organisation. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers for Canadians

There are a couple of spoilers for Canadian viewers, who see the show nine months behind. Oughtn't there be a little warning there? Pday2 (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2008

This may explain why we no longer have Spoiler warnings in Wikipedia. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Houses and Businesses in Weatherfield

I've noticed both Eastenders and Emmerdale's Articles have a seperate article on Albert Square and Emmerdale Village respectivly, why can't the same be done for Weatherfield - a year by year would be useful for an encyclopedia. Pday2 (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree, it would be a good idea (EE has many different articles for different properties too Ant parker (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)