Talk:Neighbours

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neighbours article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Storylines section (2)

Now this section has been split into its own article, it still needs a lead paragraph in this article. Yesterday I saw a documentary in the UK called Neighbours on Five which spouted various statistics. Directly quoting the narrator "236 people have lived, laughed and loved in the 6 houses on Ramsay Street, an average of 39.3 per house... there've been 26 deaths, 35 weddings, 9 shootings, 5 nervous breakdowns, 4 cases of amnesia and, interestingly enough for a cul-de-sac, 15 car crashes... 3 Fires, 2 plane crashes and 3 really big explosions". If correctly reworded and cited to this documentary I think this would work quite nicely as a short introduction. Anyone agree? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems good to me, but i'm not totally sure whether a documentary counts as reliable, but I'll let someone else answer that Ged UK (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't watched Neighbours regularly since 1988 nor am I a biased fan of the show, but to me the "documentary" commentary seems flippant and jokey and does not carry the tone required of a WP article. When they joke about "interesting" occurences in a cul de sac it is misleading: most of the car accidents, plane crashes, explosions, and fires occured elsewhere. Those big things are hardly the normal type of storyline occurence for the show, and listing them without any mention of romance, domestic squabbles, marriage problems, school problems, interpersonal clashes, comedy fundraisers, kitchen disasters, is misleading. Where did they get their stats from? The opening paragraph of the page itself does give a broad strokes overview of the general type of storyline the show concentrates on. Format (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I was simply quoting what was said in the documentary so you knew what statistics were given in it. Obviously the true lead of the section shouldn't include tongue in cheek cul-de-sac jokes and would be phrased as though summarising 23 years worth of storylines. More statistics would be ideal, but would need further research and a different source. My reasons for suggesting this is because we have a section header in this article which serves exclusively for a link to another article which, to me, looks untidy. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Hoflin / Cast lists

Please could we have a concensus for the placement of David Hoflin's position in the cast list? There appears to be an edit war starting regarding whether he's leaving or not. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

He's current cast, but is leaving. He should go in both. Though personally I think the coming and going tables aren't much cop anyway. Ged UK (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, perhaps merging this into the above table and just calling it 'Cast list' with colour coding for departing, returning and new cast members would be more helpful? Also can we scrap the rather morbid 'Deceased cast members' table? I fail to see the relevance or why anyone should expect to find a persons date of death by reading a soap opera article. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure i'd even bother with the coming and going colourisation, tbh, but i'm not fussy. We don't really need the table in the article at all, considering there's a linkthrough to the full cast article. Totally agree about the dead actors table, it really doesn't add much Ged UK (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The whole bloody cast section needs to be worked over. It's way too long and it's causing the entire article to be too long. I say have the current cast section stay as it is, along with recurring cast. Perhaps split the coming and going section into new permanent cast section and simple guest stints (such as Janet Andrewartha's return). Deceased cast and notable cast I don't see being required. Perhaps have them removed. Swanny92 (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
For a long time I have felt that these cast tables are way too obsessive. The WP article should be a broad strokes descriptive piece based on the entire show and its history and production. Not an up-to-the-minute repository of actor contractural plans before they have screened. Aren't there other fan sites that do this? Really, www.imdb.com is the place where up to the minute cast movements should be recorded. After someone leaves on screen in Australia it can be noted here I guess, if they are notable character already described in the text. Format (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
A large problem with the notable cast members list is that, with the exception of names like Kylie Minogue, Jason Donavan, Alan Dale, Guy Peirce and Natalie Imbruglia who have all become a star in their own right, the rest are generally no more famous now than when they starred in Neighbours. The names I've mentioned don't need to be in a table, they could be mentioned in the history in prose. For example 'Neighbours has launched the careers of many famous people including...' ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't read much into the perfectblends spoilers, they could always be wrong. Wait till it's confirmed on the official Neighbours website. DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.6.95 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 17 February 2008

Regardless of whether the perfectblends spoilers are true or false, we can use the information as long as we reference it. Wikipedia policy states that 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth'. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that Deceased and Notable cast members should be removed as it makes the article long, if we state that Helen Daniel's actress Anne Haddy and Max Ramsay along with Eileen Clarke have all died somewhere in the article, it would be fair as they were permanent cast. I think as with other Soap Opera articles we should state the show also helped launch the careers of 'Kylie Minogue, Jason Donovan.. ect' and clean the Goings section up. We now now that he is leaving, as realiable sources have confirmed it. Along with those noted below. What do you think? Raintheone (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus now? Should we vote or something, or just do away with them? Ged UK (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have a concenus on deleting the famous and dearly departed lists and possibly dispersing the information to other parts of the article. We don't however seem to have agreed how best to deal with future and departing cast members. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well for what it's worth, i think we should do away with everything that isn't the current cast list. The rest is just more hassle than it's worth Ged UK (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have a play with this in my sandbox. I'll let you all know when i get done Ged UK (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. I've merged the going into the main cast and moved the cites with it. Didn't bother with colouring it; if it says -2008, then they're going (we seem to have lost some cites). I've removed the dead list, and turned the notable list into prose, and trimmed out some of the less notable ones. I'd still like to either trim the current cast, or split it so it runs with two columns, but that's a bit beyond my skill. My sandbox is here, let me know what you think, here for convenience's sake. --Ged UK (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sweeney Young, Jesse Rosenfeld, Daniel O'Connor are leaving

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/a89540/four-more-neighbours-departures-announced.html

They need to be added to the going section. We all know these only report real news. So stop changing the Oliver thing, he can still stay in the current character section. .. as can Marco, Riley & Ned. Untill they leave. What do you think? Raintheone (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

'So stop changing the Oliver thing': We've been trying to discuss this issue above to try and prevent the edit war. Unfortunately the anon users who are persisting in removing this information have not yet entered into the discussion. I have reverted changes stressing it needs to be discussed first, but this was ignored and I had to stop reverting the edits due to WP:3RR. Various things relating to if and how we should present this information have been discussed above, if you'd like to offer your own opinions here, it would be greatly appreciated. If we come to a concensus here then we can refer to this concensus when making changes to the article or reverts to edits that conflict with it. Thanks. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone edited it, and someone keeps removing them. It's jus pathetic now, called vandalising. Neighbours Wiki is out of date and not accurate. This is because it is not cofirming when cast members are leaving. Raintheone (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about Raintheone? It's always confirmed when cast members are coming AND going. Every time it's reported, it gets added to the section with a reliable source. But clearly that anon user doesn't see that and wants to continue and be an idiot and remove those actors. Swanny92 (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That's what I was saying. You're right, I'm glad it's been taken note of and done atlast. Thanks. Raintheone (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested merging of tables - example

I posted this further up, but it may have got buried in the other conversations.

I've merged the 'going' list into the main cast and moved the cites with it. Didn't bother with colouring it; if it says -2008, then they're going. I've removed the dead list, and turned the notable list into prose, and trimmed out some of the less notable ones. I'd still like to either trim the current cast, or split it so it runs with two columns, but that's a bit beyond my skill. My sandbox is here, let me know what you think, here for convenience's sake. --Ged UK (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Very good. Makes a lot of sense. Format (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
That looks a lot better and way less cluttered. Wouldn't mind integrating the Upcoming list into current and recurring characters, so it defines better what the new actor's role is. In other words, put new permanent cast members in the current table and actors with upcoming guest roles in the recurring section. Could also colour code the tables, to identify who is staying, who is entering the show soon (and not on air yet) and who is leaving but still on air. Just an option to trim down the sections. Swanny92 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I just put in Ged UK's version of the Cast section, seeing as there were no objections to it. If so, just discuss. Swanny92 (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

I've requested that this article gets temporary semi protection. Hopefully this will be approved, and we can focus on developing the article without this ongoing vandalism around the 'going' table. Ged UK (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There, good. :) Ged UK (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A very good idea :-) Onshore —Preceding comment was added at 18:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We should keep the going table at least, along with the well known cast emebers one aswell!! Me myself & er —Preceding unsigned comment added by Me myself & er (talk • contribs) 05:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig

Can the Jim Robinson at the end of the theme music section be correctly disamguated? Thanks 86.130.122.126 (talk) 09:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Done Ged UK (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time and going table

Please don't include a table what times it airs in Britain. Please keep the cast section the way it is now and please don't delete the going table!!! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Me myself & er (talk • contribs) 05:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the table for broadcast details not being included. It's pretty much a TV guide for Neighbours airing in an overseas country. Why not have one for Australia as well? In regards to the going table, it was combined with the current cast section because it's pretty much repeated information. There's nothing in the going table that can't be in the current cast section instead. Also, the notable cast members and deceased cast members is useless information. The notable cast section was converted to a simple text paragraph, a table isn't required for it. Swanny92 (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Aww... I was quite proud of that UK table! Although I agree it's probably not in keeping with the Wikipedia MOS (can't find any other article with one similar) and it did seem rediculously unbalanced against Australia. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The 'going' table is an utter waste of time, it simply repeats information in the current cast list, and raises the possibility of them becoming out of sync. Ged UK (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The going table is not needed. If it is announced someone is leaving, then the end year of their tenture can be added to their name in the cast list (with a reference). That's more than enough. No extra tables! Format (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
All other soap opera articles have "comings and goings" tables. Why should Neighbours be any different? Kogsquinge (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Apart from the fact "comings and goings" is very bad English, just because other articles go by a certain style does not mean this should. If it's been discussed here that we don't need a departing characters table and we've come to a concensus on it, we stick by it. We don't simply overule what everyone's said and do our own thing. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Just because many other soap opera articles have going tables it is no reason to have them here. Does WP operate on a system of precedents? The going tables could and should be removed from those pages just as they have from here. WP is not a fansite for individual soaps. Format (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's clear we all need to come to a firm and final agreement on this, reverting each others edits is not helping anything. Currently we seem to have thee people in agreement that we don't need extra tables and a fourth who reverts this solely on the basis of consistency with other soap opera articles. Please could we all firmly agree which outcome is best on this talk page before making any other significant changes to the section. My opinion: While it's true other soap opera articles have these tables, their editors have acknowledged that doing so oversizes the section and have split the section into another article. Whether this is a valid action or not I'm not sure, however if we keep the tables, the section is too large for the article. If we don't keep the extra tables, I believe the section holds up on its own as a summary anyway as it links to other articles for further information. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ages ago I suggested moving the cast section to it's own article, though did not move on. The point is, the article isn't exactly perfect. Probably far from perfect, it still needs plenty of information, and it's already going oversized. The Cast section is one section which tends to become long, so having as least info as possible is what is needed. The Going section is simply repeated information, seeing as it's already combined with the Current cast section. I had the Upcoming section split into two sections, and that makes it look shorter as well. In a nutshell, the Going section is not needed! Swanny92 (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just had a look on the WikiProject Television page, and in particular at the guidance (policy?) on writing about characters, and there is nothing in there about 'coming and goings', it specifies: When appropriate, split up into a list of "Main characters", "Recurring characters" and "Special appearances". I haven't gone back through the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television archives to see whether this issue ever came up. I would suggest that we either follow those guidelines as they are, or request advice of project members. Ged UK (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
If the project page stated that it should go by Main characters, Recurring Characters and Special appearances, shouldn't that mean that it should change to sorting by character, rather than actor? Perhaps a new section in the Current characters and Recurring characters articles should be created respectively about Upcoming characters. Swanny92 (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd have no problem with sorting by character, it would allow better grouping by families in some circumstances I guess. Not quite sure I understand what you mean about the new section though. My brain's been on strike most of today! Ged UK (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, by the new section in the Current and recurring character articles I meant just somehow including the Upcoming cast members in those articles. Though the splitting of the Upcoming tables was confusing enough as it was, so maybe it would be best off to leave the table as it is now, that and Imogen Bailey looked very alone on the Upcoming cast members table lol! Swanny92 (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erin McNaught

She has been removed from upcoming cast members yet more vandalisim. She was confirmed to be joining on so many sources, and a TV documentry about Neighbours. Raintheone (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please could you check again, so far as I can tell she's still in the list. No one has recently removed her. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the upcoming table is split in two (upcoming permanent, and upcoming recurring). She's still there. Frankly, this just confirms the silliness of the table splitting, but meh Ged UK (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd second that "meh". In this case this obviously caused confusion as things were not where the reader expected to find them. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I've recombined the tables, as obviously my idea wasn't as popular as I thought it would be. I've just put Lyn, Sienna and Simone B's character as guest characters by writing "(guest role)" beside their debut/return dates. Hope that helps! Swanny92 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that's much better! Ged UK (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Now her character is on screen, shouldn't she be put into the current cast members section? She has a character profile on the official Neighbours website, along with all the other cast members. Plus recurring characters such as Sam and Taylah are not on the website because they are recurring. Wasn't Erin meant to stay on, but she decided to leave after her second contract? Just suggesting. Thanks. Raintheone (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

She's only a recurring cast member, simple as that. I'm guessing they went to the trouble to make a character profile page for Sienna on the main website because she arrived onscreen around the same time the website was revamped. Swanny92 (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
How do you know this though. Works both ways really doesn't it, need a source to prove either.Raintheone (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Here, on Perfect Blend: Fiona Byrne's column in the Sunday Herald Sun reports that (Erin McNaught) has signed a three-month contract, with the possibility of becoming a full-time cast member. Swanny92 (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to work out which of the newbies are recurring and which are permanent. My guess is that Nicola, Ty and Sienna are all main characters (as they all have profiles on the main site), yet their actors are only guests (as they're listed as guests on the credits), so there's a difference. If that's the case, then if we're sorting the lists by actor rather than character, then Imogen Bailey and Dean Geyer should be moved into the recurring section until they are (either) added to the opening sequence (not forgetting that Dichen Lachman (Katya Kinski) was a guest the whole time on the show, yet she was on the opening sequence, or until they become credited as full time cast members. If we want to do it by recurring character/main character, then we should move Erin McNaught into the current cast members section. I'm also having trouble deciding whether Scott Major and Margot Robbie are recurring or regulars. Thoughts? Swanny92 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Swanny - Recurring characters

The characters such as Lucia Camenitti were repeatedly placed back on the table due to the fact they are recurring characters -- of course they are not going to appear every week. I think it's foolish to remove recurring characters from the list when they have not been killed off or confirmed to not be returning, but just because they haven't appeared on the program recently. Look at Angie and Big Kev; they hadn't been on the show since 2006, but there they were again just recently. Why do they keep getting removed the moment they "leave", when they're classed as recurring? It makes no sense to me. Hardcore gamer 48 (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I suppose I've just always seen the table as being "current recurring characters" rather than recurring characters. There's gonna be a time though when they won't be on the show, but when they are known to return then they can be added again. Lucia doesn't have any known upcoming appearances, so why have her on the table? May as well add Summer and Gino back to the table as well, which would be kinda stupid. I was just going by how I thought it worked, that's all. Swanny92 (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
WP is not really a fan site keeping up to minute records of contractural arrangements of the Neighbours cast. When someone disappears from the screen in Australia they probably can be removed from current cast list. When a "recurring" character makes their departure, without a credible external reference stating when their return is to be, they can also be deleted. Soap operas have large ever-changing casts, do we really need to list each and every cast movement here? Isn't that what www.imdb.com is for? I thought WP should be a descriptive overview of the entire series. Format (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe then we should consider restricting the entire Cast section to the permanent cast members only? It's been considered before, though I think we were all thinking only of the Departing section, due to the repeated vandalism on that section. Swanny92 (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. If they're not regular cast members, and we don't know if they'll be returning for future guest stints, then there's scarcely any point of keeping the list there. However, that raises the question of what would happen to the "Coming" cast -- would characters who are confirmed for guest appearances such as Lyn be removed? Hardcore gamer 48 (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe move the remaining sections into... say Cast of Neighbours? Or extend the Current cast article to include current recurring characters, and the upcoming section. Besides, the Cast section needs more info I reckon, such as how the contracts work for the actors etc. Did that once, though got reverted as it didn't follow the style of the other soap opera articles (hmm sound familiar?) Swanny92 (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episode count

Today, 5 episodes were added to the episode count for this week. Does that mean that Network 10 aired Neighbours today (a public holiday)? If so, are they airing Neighbours on Easter Monday too? If this is the case, it makes the bit about the UK broadcasts being 55 episodes behind that of Australia incorrect as Five haven't scheduled Neighbours to air either today or on Monday. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ten isn't really that affected by public holidays, as the UK are. Neighbours airs for the full 49 weeks without any permanent disruption. No idea about how far behind Five is. Do they make up for missed episodes by airing a double or something? Swanny92 (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The BBC managed to close the original delay of about 18 months by showing Neighbours 52 weeks of the year. This was up until a few years ago when they reached 11 weeks (55 episodes) and synchronised it there (probably because they weren't allowed to reduce it any further). They did this by stopping Neighbours either at Christmas or during Wimbledon Championships in June/July or even a mixture of both. Easter or other bank holidays never seemed to have an effect on broadcasts of Neighbours. Now Neighbours is on Five anything could happen and it seems it already has. At the end of Thursday's episode Five stated Neighbours will be back on Tuesday, thereby increasing the episode lag by 2 episodes (which is stupid because the biggest cliff-hangers are usually on the Friday episode, which will now be Tuesdays episode for the foreseeable future). Whether they'll somehow close this gap again or reduce it even further will probably remain a mystery until it happens. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So the United Kingdom broadcasts section of the article needs changing, but I'm not sure whether I should change it now or leave it until after Monday for factual accuracy. Advice on this would be very appreciated if anyone can give it. I've also looked at RTE's schedule (Ireland being normally 1 episode behind the UK) and they did show Neighbours on Friday. However a Monday episode is not scheduled which means that from Tuesday Five[1] and RTE2[2] will be showing the same episodes on the same day at the same time. So the ROI part will also need to be changed when appropriate. ~~ Peteb16 (talk)

Easiest option I reckon is to show the episode difference by the number of episodes instead of number of weeks, seeing as Five obviously will have some disruptions throughout the year. It's more specific too than just saying weeks. Swanny92 (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nat Blair and Pippa Black's departures

Pippa Black says she want's to leave but hasn't given an exact date yet, so it should only be only added when she confirms the date. Nothing has been officailly confirmed that Natalie is leaving, it only say she's considering it. Just because it says her contract expires in September, it doesn't mean that she's leaving, she may decide she wants to stay and renew her contract. So nothing should be added until Natalie herself confirms she is definately leaving. http://perfectblend.net/news/spoiler/index2.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.17.34 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is they want to leave, so they're leaving. If they change their mind then we'll just remove it. Swanny92 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 57 episodes behind Australia

Under 'United Kingdom Broadcasts', it says that the UK is exactly 57 episodes behind Australia, but is this true? For instance, today there was no episode in the UK because it is a bank holiday, and so unless there wasn't one shown in Australia on all UK bank holidays , the number would vary. Does anyone know any better? 82.43.155.134 (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The description given on Radiotimes.com for tomorrow's episodes on Five, RTE1 and RTE2 says "Steph finds herself in trouble when she is implicated in the warehouse collapse. Paul is flattered by Kirsten's attention. Rachel and Declan are keeping secrets from Bridget." This matches the description given here for episode 5404. Network 10 will show episode 5462 on the same day. This means UK and Ireland are now 58 episodes behind Australia. It was 57 until Five's bank holiday break (something Australia don't do, even if they have a public holiday). Something would appear to be amiss though as RTE1 and RTE2 both showed episode 5403 today meaning they must have had a break at some other point recently. The number will I assume continue to increase with further bank holidays this year, however it remains to be seen what will happen at Christmas after the 2008 finale and Australia goes on a break. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Margot Robbie

I think she did start out as a recurring cast member though she got extended to being a regular. There's a source right here. Swanny92 (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)