Talk:Hollyoaks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] A few points

I removed the refernce to Tony recently being outed as a porn star as it was refered to before ages ago - I remember an episode where the Burton family ended up accidently watching it.

Also, can people avoid referernces to time? There's a reference to 'last week' somewhere in the article and several references to 'new' or 'recent' characters who have been in it for ages now. It makes the article go out of date quicker.

[edit] Table of Characters

Like it or not, this page is far too long. There seems to be some dispute over whether to include pages for the separate characters or not, but either way - a wikipedia article about Hollyoaks shouldn't contain a full biography on every single character - a complete biography should have a page of its own. Either get rid of my table and reduce the text to a paragraph per family; or keep the text in its long form but keep the table too. You can't find anything on the page as it is

I admit it doesn't fit in well with the current text, but thats partly because the current text is ridiculously long. If its removed at least a past version will be stored in the history for insertion into a future reworded page.

Smeddlesboy 14:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's very easy to navigate.. if you look close to the top there should be a nice juicy brown box, it has a list of families, we call this a "Table of Contents" - If you where to click a name as if by magick it takes you to that section, where you can find things very easy by looking at the bolded names. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but (ignoring the sarcasm) that's exactly my point. To do that, you need to have some idea of who you're looking for in the first place (i.e. being a fan). As I understand it, that's not the point of Wikipedia - it should be an encyclopedia article that can be read by someone with little or no understanding of the topic. For example, how would a newcomer know that, to find Russell Owen, they had to look in the list of "characters at HCC" and not "other characters"? and so on. Some people are organised by families; others are organised by where they study. That makes no sense - in an encyclopedia, all characters should be indexed in the same way. Confusing.

There are too many headings and the page is massive (and if you don't agree with me, Wikipedia do - see the message they give us when we click "edit") Someone has to cut this page down to size. There's a lot of good stuff here (and I wouldn't want to see any of it lost) - but too much of it for just one page. Separate character pages are probably the way to go? Smeddlesboy 14:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

PS Compare with the Neighbours page to see how its managed there. To my mind, that is much clearer to a casual user Smeddlesboy 14:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Someone please get rid of the separate articles on every character on the show. Everything that can be said about the characters is summarised on this page already. GeeJo (t) (c) 22:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

I added them so we can incoperate more data into seprate pages to help keep things cleaner. They were uncomplete so i created a page for each charcter, If you feel it very inconvinient feel free to remove them your self.--MatthewFenton 12:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I redirected them here in accordance with WP:FICTION, rather than adding them to WP:AfD. Some of the pages were more like Wikipedia:Substubs and in at least one case there was more information in this article. Another article was about the actress rather than the character.
Since these redirects have been reverted, perhaps we could find a consensus here? WP:FICTION suggests that even major characters should be included in the main article unless the article has become excessively long, which I'd suggest that this one hasn't. --Whouk (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
If pages for some will be removed i suggest removing them all, Maybe together we can incorperate more data into the Hollyoaks article its self.. Also the user pages will need to be deleted.. Do you know how to?--MatthewFenton 11:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It would make sense to incorporate the information in the main article. The character pages shouldn't be deleted though - just replace the contents with #REDIRECT [[Hollyoaks]] once anything needed here has been copied over.
What do you mean by the user pages? --Whouk (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I mean charcter pages :P--MatthewFenton 12:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
OK :-) Yeah, we just redirect them here. I'll work on some of them later this afternoon. --Whouk (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darlene's siblings

According to this site, she has two other siblings apart from Ali. Is anyone sure this is true and not just vandalism? Were they ever on the show or even mentioned?--This post is from a unregisterd user.

Yes they did have two other siblings a brother and sister (they where shown at Alis funeral)--Matthew Fenton 15:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right. How comes no one ever seemed to mention them (which was why I thought it might have been vandalism). —This unsigned comment was added by 80.41.77.88 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Upcoming character section

Why is this section completely erased after so many months of being on the page.? These characters are on their way to the show and they are 100% true as per theOfficial site, so what's the deal?

You need to provide a source for as to where it says there going to be on the show that is verifiable (IE: Channel4, Hollyoaks.com) if you can provide a source then please do show me and re-add the section. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


How about you check the official character section on the official Hollyoaks Website. These additions have been known for a few months now. The site even has a Hollyoaks X-TRA about it. It would be great if an editor for a certain show would actually take the time to check out the official site to the show or Inside Soap so that he can get the latest news.

Inside Soap isnt verifiable. It is policy to cite your sources. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


Neither are you bub!!! Check your own facts!!!!

I've never claimed to be verifiable nor inserted any unverifiable info into the article. I will allow you to self revert as i will not violate WP:3RR. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Mr. Fenton!!!!!!

Hello ,,

Why do you choose to ignore the Official website????? If you go there, you will see that the information is correct. Please go to the cast and characterrs section and let me know what you find there. I do not know why you continually take off this section, (especially when you told me above that you would not take it off because of some rule) This information has been known for a few months and there are interviews with the McQUEENS. If it's been confirmed by the official site why do you choose to ignore this. Look at Carmel's first appearance. Please I would like to understand your way of thinking on how to maintain the wikipedia webpage.

Saying that the website says it in a summary is not enough, you cave to source it with a direct link (an example that would suffice: [url <title] (PS: I would of violated a rule then but not at present). thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


It actually says it in the Character sections . Please go directlyItalic text to the cast and character section yourself and you will see profiles for them `Go now!!!!! Then let me know what you think!!!! You know what the address is.

I certainly aint going searching for charcters.. wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable; Unless you the one who wants to add the section can cite it, i will remove it. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


You want me toi cite sources, I told you my source. Listen you twerp, you are supposedly the leader of this webpage and you have to find sources and you yourself will not do research into the very show that you are the leader for. If you want to keep this webpage current a good editor must check their sources. As long as you choose to remove it, I will replace it, as I know I am not doing anything against policy. I can cite sources but i ALREADY CITED VERIFIABLE SOURCES. I am not citing any rumours, just what is stated in the Hollyoaks official website. Geez, there is no getting through to you is there???

Please stay cool and calm, attacking me will get you no where; You are not citing a direct source in the artice it's self; It says alot of things at hollyoaks.com, i see nothing to suggest there is an upcoming character section. Please see: WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:ATTACK, WP:3RR. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that: You've now violated WP:3RR; I suggest self reverting your edits. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Fine I am not trying to attack you I just don't know why you can't keep up to date with the official site, like others do. This section stayed for a while before you did it the first time last week.

http://www.hollyoaks.com/backstage/cast_and_characters.asp

Are you happy now???

No i'm not happy; You need to cite direct links to said character; Furthermore i spent my time bringing this article back up to an acceptable std. and so am not about to let it go below average again. It's not my job to do your job for you, you wish to have that section; then you must do the work. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My 2c/epilogue

Although this issue now looks resolved, I had been asked by Matthew to take a look. My comments are:

  1. WP:V says "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor." MF was within his right to remove a section which was unsourced and could not easily be verified.
  2. "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." I looked on Hollyoaks.com, and the 'characters' section was not in aan obvious place i.e. I couldn't find it. We could only verify it when the direct link was produced. This should have been done at the beginning of the discussion.
  3. WP:CALM and WP:CIVIL. "Listen you twerp" is not useful.
  4. Some editors abide by the WP:1RR. The world is not going to end tomorrow if some pretty uncontroversial (e.g. not libellous, etc.) facts about a teen soap opera doesn't have a source. WP:TEA. It would have been best to persue it via the talk page first, before embarking on an edit war.

The JPStalk to me 20:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The fire at The Dog - 8th September 2006

Is it me, or is Hollyoaks in terminal decline, waiting for the axe? Why else would they have a rapist (Sam) escape from prison, take his sister (Nicole) hostage, then burn down the pub to spite his brother (Russ) and ex-girlfriend (Sophie), killing himself along with Sophie, her twin (Mel), and two innocents (Joe and Olivia) and putting the numbnuts in hospital (OB). That's six characters bumped off in the past few weeks if you count the Valentine's mum. That's the biggest wipeout of cast members since the boat explosion on Channel Five soap Family Affairs a few years back (and that itself was axed!). That quite literally lends the term "sinking ship"! User:antster1983 14:11, 9th September 2006

Remember not to add your opinions to the article ;-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I tidied some of the details around the 5 deaths on Friday up, but someone turned them back to how they where before. I know why they were changed back, but some of the details are wrong, or just grammatically incorrect. I also added a sentance or 2 about Calvin saving Jake from the fire in Calvin's sub-sectionUser:ChrisDV

Extreme dramatic events are not a sign of "terminal decline" - look at Emmerdale. They shake up relationships and create opportunities for new characters. Family Affairs was revived by the explosion, and its axing several years later was entirely unrelated. Robina Fox 11:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually,the fire at The Dog was an introdouction to a new writer, and was his way of bringing Hollyoaks into the noughties.

[edit] Jacqui McQueen

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds36822.html

And as always her profile has already been up for a few months now on the Official website :)

[edit] Help with past characters

Hey can someone help me with the past character page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollyoaks_past_characters

[edit] Santa in Hollyoaks!

Well, I presume we can now say that magic does indeed exist in Hollyoaks after the episode this week where the real Father Christmas appeared (and disappeared) to win a Max Mission toy for Tom!

It made me laugh, and I did enjoy it, but after this I'm finding it hard to take the soap even remotely seriously! Long live Hollyoaks! Xzamuel 01:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maxwell or Maximilian

Whats Max short for Maxwell or Maximilian? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanDudd88 (talk • contribs).

It can also be short for just "Max" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he's called Maximilian. Anyway, on Max's page someone has added how he may die. Is this just specualtion or is it actually true?

[edit] Article Content

I have recently done a lot of work on the Coronation Street article so that it actually talks about the programmes instead of listing characters and storylines. I would like to propose a similar thing for this article because it is 69 KB of well...nothing much. Most of the information contained here could or should appear in character profiles. What about the original cast? What about Jambo, Kirk, Maddie and Ruth? Actually all non-present characters are forgotten, which isn't really what a main article should be about. I understand Wikipedia's guidelines on characters in fiction, but what is the point in aimlessly listing characters if a reader is given little or no background? This article as it is assumes a lot of prior knowledge and understanding of the subject, which is what an encyclopedia is not based on. This article needs to present a wider picture of Hollyoaks before it even tries to list characters or what has happened to them. What about the impact the programme has had on British TV? It's fair to say 'Hollyoaks has received numerous awards over the years and raised awareness of issues[...]' but surely it has done more than that? I am more than happy and excited to help contribute to this, but I'd like to know what other Wikipedians think? Surely we can't have a Hollyoaks article that is focused solely on what is happening now? Ben 20:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some Pointers

Well I've spent a fair amount of time correcting common errors, etc. so I thought I might address a few pointers for those of you who are regular editors of this page:

  • Clare Cunningham is the correct spelling, not Claire Cunningham.
  • Darren Osborne is the correct spelling, not Darren Osbourne.
  • Try not to write 'recently' or the like, because 'recently' goes out of date and becomes not so recent.

Redl@nds597198 07:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming Down

I've trimmed down a few bits and bobs, as you'll probably see. I understand that earlier discussion about this article (with regard to WP:FICTION) came to the decision that individual character profiles and synopses should be included on this page. I think that the interpretation of the guidlines at WP:FICTION has been uncertain, and this article does not cover the main purpose of WP:FICTION (and Wikipedia for that matter): 'Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance'

This article says more or less nothing about the achievements, impact or historical significane of Hollyoaks, it's merely a dumping ground for new character information, which is generally added after each episode airs. I believe that the only way to go is to have separate character articles to avoid the page ballooning any further. I've trimmed down about 30 kilobytes just by recreating articles for the Osborne-Dean family. I will be working on their profiles over the next couple of weeks, hopefully bringing them to a standard on which the other Hollyoaks character articles can be modelled. It may even be and idea to see if we can develop family articles instead of single character profiles. Ben 22:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone moved the list of Characters, and its in no perticular order. DanDud88 21:45 14 February 2007 (GMT)
I've just alphabetised the entire list. Redl@nds597198 12:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well Somone just un alphabetised them. Who ever it is has no user name and has not come forward to give there reasons. It seems to be listed with Tony first and the only thing i can think of is he's listing them in order of how long they been on the show. Seeing as how they don't have a user name we should try and lock the page down so only registed users can modify the page. DanDud88 21:40 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, you're right, it is in order of how long they've been around. We could change it back to the alphabetised version, or we could change it to the old version that was on the Hollyoaks main page (i.e. Family lists, HCC students, other, etc.). Or we could leave it as it is, but I think the old way from the main page would be most organised. Redl@nds597198 02:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images of Characters Needed

Right I've created most of the character pages, I just need some images to fill them. DanDud88

[edit] Steve Wright

Are we sure it's the right Wright? I thought it wasn't the DJ guy, but I may be wrong. LeeG 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hollyoaks or Hollyoaks

Well there seem to be some inconsistencies here, it might take a while to correct all of the differences on all the separate character and other relevant pages, but just to say here, when referring to the actual show, it should be written Hollyoaks and when referring to the village it should be written Hollyoaks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redl@nds597198 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Siblings age orders

I need the age orders of The Cunningham children Max, Dawn and Cindy I want to make sure i have them in the right order on the past character list the same with the Morgan children.

[edit] Hollyoaks: Missing You (2007)?

Hi, Has this been broadcast yet? If not when is it due to be, and is there a source? Thanks. Chris as I am Chris 17:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Rules

NO POSTING LATE NIGHT EPISODES UNLESS YOU HAVE A SOURCE TO BACK IT UP (sorry about the caps but I want to make my point clear) DandDudd88 22:40 (UTC)

[edit] USA Start Point

Does anyone know at what point the series will start in the US. i know it says where its at Sam Owens return, so are we to assume it starts with the Dog explosion.--Irishboi 22:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character Bios

Ok so Hollyoaks airs on channel 4 at 6:30 and then the next episode is on e4 at 7. Should the character bios be altered after the e4 show or should we wait till the next day till it air on channel 4?, cos e4 isn't available everywhere --Irishboi 01:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few questions

I don't know all that much about the long-term history of Hollyoaks, as I am a recent viewer. But I have read some articles (a Digital Spy interview with the producer, Bryan Kirkwood) about the show was considered to have been in a decline in the early/mid-00's, until recently. Do you think anyone should write up a history of the show in terms of the major events, how viewers reacted to them, etc.? Since there has been such mention of some of the recent stories, like Clare's reign of terror and the John Paul/Craig storyline, should those be mentioned more?

I was also wondering if you thought any Hollyoaks couples should be given entries into the Supercouples section. I don't see any couples from British soaps there, but I know UK soaps have had their share (like Den and Angie on Eastenders). Since John Paul and Craig ended up being so talked about and a lot of people who aren't even UK residents have followed their story on Youtube, you'd think that would be a supercouple. --JamesB3 12:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Hollyoaks history section, I think that it would be difficult to do aside from what we have about significant storylines already. If Hollyoaks was split into seasons, it would be easier to distinguish the significant storylines (I suppose anyway).
I also noticed (from your mentioning it) that there are no UK supercouples. Perhaps that is because we don't really consider that term (I guess it is more of an American thing). If you wanted to add them to it, I guess you could. Just my two pence on your comments :). [Jam][talk] 02:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I just looked on Dirty Den and Angie, and it says that they are a UK supercouple, but they are not listed in the list itself. If you wanted to add them (and JP and Craig), then feel free - I guess they fall into that category :). [Jam][talk] 02:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should we start a minor characters page?

I know that this show is not exactly on the popularity level of Eastenders, but HO does have a number of characters who appear for only a few episodes, or a few weeks. They may not deserve their own individual pages, but maybe we should start a minor character page to put them on? For instance, Nige, the guy Ste takes order from who slept with Michaela. I don't know if we could include characters of recent times who are already gone (like Pete Webster or Simon Crosby), but anyway, this is just an idea, I wanted to hear any opinion you have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesB3 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Kieron Hobbs is being considered for deletion, I think it might be a good idea. I've supported keeping the Kieron Hobbs page, but I suspect a minor characters page could be quite a good idea. Perhaps Characters in Hollyoaks could be started (in a similar vein to Supporting characters on Will & Grace)? ~~ [Jam][talk] 11:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea to me. Minor Characters in Hollyoaks, possibly, or Recurring. They also have minor character pages for Eastenders and Corrie, but those go by year, I think, and I'm not sure if we are going by year or just minor characters all in one grouping. Maybe grouping together would make sense for now, since Hollyoaks doesn't have a huge array of minor characters and we aren't exactly going to be listing all the way back to 1995. If we do this I guess Robin (JP's one-week boyfriend) and Nige would be good additions, and maybe Pete and Simon, and Wayne Tuncliffe, although maybe they should just stay where they are since they already have pages. I'm not sure. --JamesB3 (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that a general list of minor characters in Hollyoaks (List of minor characters in Hollyoaks perhaps, or even just Minor characters in Hollyoaks?), along with a bit of a character description would be fine in my opinion. Robin, Nige, Pete and Simon would probably be the first lot of additions to it.
On a slight aside, I think most of the Hollyoaks character pages needs their "character history" trimming down because they are far too long. I'll probably look into it over the next few weeks. ~~ [Jam][talk] 12:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I've now started the page at List of minor characters from Hollyoaks, and redirected Pete Webster's page over to there. ~~ [Jam][talk] 14:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks great. Great work. I agree some of the character pages are a bit too long (while a few are too short). --JamesB3 (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Father Kieron

Why does the Hollyoaks page still refer to him as Kieron Hobbs? I know that was the original intended name for the character, but (as Hollyoak's office has told me) the name of the character was changed to O'Dowd at the last minute, although unfortunately some listings magazines 9and the Channel 4 website!) don't seem to have got hold of the correction. For someone who has watched all 2253 episodes to date, it is rather fristrating to see that information here when it does not accord with the character or credits to the pisodes themselves. Can anyone enlighten me, please?

88.109.252.160 (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Rainbow 1388.109.252.160 (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can provide us with a verifiable source (the "Hollyoaks office" is not verifiable) saying that his name is Kieron O'Dowd instead of Kieron Hobbs, it will remain as Kieron Hobbs because that is what the official credits say, and what the Hollyoaks website says. Presumably if the office is saying it is O'Dowd, then the website should represent this? ~~ [Jam][talk] 18:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Father Kieron's page has been removed, yet I think it's again obvious he is a main character, appears in the credits now, plus he has a big storyline playing out onscreen at the moment. Raintheone (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said on Talk:Kieron Hobbs, he does not currently meet the WP:FICT notability constraints. There are many other characters that have pages here who don't meet this requirements either, and are actually eligible to have their pages deleted. By merging them into the minor characters page, this stops this happening. ~~ [Jam][talk] 09:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Would a verifiable source not be the programme credits, which are shown on the telephosion every day (and the monibus edition on Sunday)? I'm coming to the conclusion that the people whomaintain this site don't actually watch the programme! I am not at home until after Easter, but I have there the e-mails referred to: to whom should i forward them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.156.88 (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean the same programme credits that say his name is Kieron Hobbs?? ~~ [Jam][talk] 16:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But they don't - do you actually WATCH the programme? I hadn't heard of the name Hobbs until I came onto this site and dicovered the discrepancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.233.156 (talk) 09:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do watch the programme actually, and I've been keeping an eye on the credits, and he has always (except for one or two different times) been credited as Kieron Hobbs. The official website says his name is Kieron Hobbs. We follow what is officially available, and that is the website (and credits). If those are wrong, then you need to speak to Channel 4 and Lime Pictures (and whoever else is involved) and get them to change the website. ~~ [Jam][talk] 10:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

KIERON IS NOT A MINOR CHARACTER. HE'S IN THE OPENING AND IS GIVEN A FULL PROFILE ON THE WEBSITE. THERE HAVE BEEN 3 SEPERATE OCCASIONS, ONE OF THEM BEING ME, WHERE PEOPLE EDITED HIS PROFILE TO GIVE HIM A REGULAR PAGE ONLY TO HAVE YOU, THE MODERATOR ERASE IT. ENOUGH ALREADY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.33.144 (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, I am not a moderator - I am merely another editor like you. Secondly, yes, he is on the opening titles - big whoop. That does not make him a notable character. Technically, he is a "recurring" character - he is not constantly in the show. He also hasn't had any major storylines yet which will make him notable enough for a full Wikipedia page. PLEASE read the fiction guidelines before you start complaining about this again. ~~ [Jam][talk] 09:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A show to masturbate on

The show has been described numerous times as a show that teenagers watch to jack off of in the past, should this be mentioned in the article?- SCB '92 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well are there any real references and sources to the claim though?Raintheone (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)