Talk:Neighbours/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Neighbours (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 > 2 >>

Contents

Can someone please lock this page

Someone has been vandiliding this page for ages i've changed it like 10 times instead of writing Long-Running someone keeps writing Man-Hating or. Anti-Male. Can someone please lock this page because it is getting really annoying.Glamgirljaspreet101 (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 Finale

What happened ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.175.9 (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Check Out www.neighboursfans.com/episodesGlamgirljaspreet101 (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


Thanks ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.251.138 (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Recurring list

Why do people keep removing Hannah Greenwood, Marisa Siketa and Shane McNamara from the recurring cast members list? Kogsquinge 23:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Shane McNamara hasn't appeared since he fired Lyn from A Good Hair Day. Marissa apparently has left the show all together to focus on school, and I'm not sure why Hannah keeps getting removed. Hmm... I thought I put my info down here. Ah well. 124.177.224.8 11:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

PMA, please stop putting Shane McNamara and Marisa Siketa back up. Neither actors have appeared on the show in ages; show proof that they are still in the show, and I'll believe it. 124.177.241.81 07:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Original Channel/Network

Seven Network is shown as the "Original Channel". Even though thats what channel is started on, it makes it look like it is currently shown on Seven. I think that fact should be changed to...

Network: Seven Network (1985) Network Ten (1986 - present)

Thats my thoughts.

Actor leaving

Damien Bodie leaving was reported in The Herald Sun. Trying to find an online link though. - I Am Me.

Rocky Horror Show cast?

I remember reading in TV Week sometime in 2004, that the cast performed in a Rocky Horror Show play. I've added it to a Trivia section, but I can't recall who played who. All I remember is that Marcella Russo played Magenta, and Blair McDonough and Alan Fletcher were in it too (the cast were entirely Neighbours actors, but those are the only ones I recall). Could people who know who played who add them to it? 124.178.198.249 08:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it for now, seeing as I'm the only person who knows about it thus far. However, please leave this talk section up; if anyone knows about it in the future, and possibly has credible sources, please let us know. BTW, I remembered that Marisa Warrington played another character. 124.177.241.81 07:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, sorry for this, but I've found a link, but is sadly a Wiki page. Lucy De Ville. I'll still remove the section for now.

Greatest show?

I'm deleting the following POV sentence from the first paragraph:

It is conisderd the greatest show in the history of the Planet Earth and has netted more than AUS$1 billion for Grundy after being seen worldwide.

It was added by this anonymous user. I haven't reverted in order to keep more recent edits. Silver Nemesis 19:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Blake Stringer, Adam Scully

Does anyone know if these articles are accurate? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 12:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's possible Blake was the winner of that contest held to pick a new guy and girl for Neighbours cast members. We'll just have to wait and see... 124.177.241.81 06:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Marisa Siketa, Shane McNamara

These two actors have not appeared on Neighbours for a rather long time. I constantly have to remove them from the list, and have decided to put a citation needed flag up for them both. I thought it was made pretty clear that Shane wasn't appearing on Neighbours again after firing Lyn, and Marisa apparently has quit the show altogether to focus on school work. 124.177.229.111 07:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I just discovered Marisa IS still in the show. I've removed the citation needed flag for her ; ) My bad. 124.177.229.111 08:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because Janet Andrewartha is leaving doesn't mean we won't see Gino again - he has been involved in storylines that don't involve Lyn, such as Ned's play last year. If he doesn't appear again by the end of the year I'll remove him. Kogsquinge 23:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. 138.217.214.182 07:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Original channel in the infobox

There doesn't seem to be much agreement over what should be put in the infobox for original channel. I think this should say Seven Network, and nothing else. The text to the left of whatever is there says Original channel, not All networks the program is aired on in the country of origin or something to that effect. I'd like to know people's reasons for disagreeing with this, and for some sort of agreement or compromise to be reached. jd || talk || 16:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely there could be a way to just change "Original Channel" to just "Channel". Or, Original Channel could remain, and Current Channel could be introduced. 144.131.239.123 07:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
A change like that would have to be discussed on the infobox's talk page, but I don't see the point - it seems like unnecessary clutter to me. Information about the fact that it's no longer shown on Seven, and reasons for that, are already in the article. I think this should be enough. jd || talk || 10:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Clutter? I'm sure two more words could not possibly hurt. 124.177.240.12 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it would, and putting (Currently Network Ten) in the box is worse than what some people wanted there in the first place. As I've pointed out before, the box says Original channel, and according to Wiktionary, original can mean First in a series or Having as its origin. If we were to go by one of those definitions, there'd be no room for Network Ten anyway. I think having it written in the text is enough. JDtalk 07:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just feel it's too strange to not include Network Ten there. But whatever, I'll leave it now. It's really not worth the hassle. 124.177.240.12 07:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

To me, original channel in this usage, refers to the original channel of initial broadcast / production of the episode in question. Like, US comedy series Get Smart from the 1960s might get rerun in Australia on Network Seven, but clearly that is not the original channel of the episodes/series itself. As far as I am concerned, since 1986 the original channel is Network Ten. To interpret original in this usage as the first channel in the series production seems highly faulty because it is not the norm for programs to switch channels - especially not in Australia. Format 03:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"in Australia"

Could people please stop adding "in Australia" or "in Australian episodes" when referring to cast lists, airdates and storylines? Neighbours is an Australian show, and Australia gets the latest episodes, so I think most people would assume that it refers to Oz airdates. Also because the actual storylines themselves are "current" in Australia (for example, the characters celebrate public holidays at the same time they are happening in real life). Kogsquinge 01:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're probably right about other countries' airdates in general, but I think the UK is a special case. Neighbours is watched by far more people in the UK than in Australia, and the BBC has a certain amount of editorial control over the show (they can change or veto storylines for example) - so I think the UK airdates should be given just as much prominence as the Australian ones. 217.155.20.163 22:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Individual article for "Erinsborough"?...

Much of the contect of this article seems to be discussing the fictional location of Erinsborough, rather than the content of the Series itself.

I would like to suggest that Erinsborough become its own article (rather than a redirect), to allow for more appropriate focus in the articles (that is, discuss the town of Erinsborough in "Erinsborough", while discussing the Series proper in "Neighbours"). This follows the WP:FICT guidelines, too.

Just a thought, but I feel it would be a positive move. Gonzerelli 13:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Just go for it, don't wait for authorisation from the mods. I would...Maybe that's why I was blocked on my old account...but still, just go for it and make the Erinsborough page. Neoballmon II 09:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags… again…

I have removed the following spoiler tags from the Storylines section. As well as being completely unnecessary, given this is an Australian show (as discussed previously), they are also incorrect: -

Spoilers for viewers outside the UK follow
Spoilers for viewers outside the UK end here

The paragraphs in question are spoilers for UK fans, too!! Silver Nemesis 19:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

Previous spoiler warnings have been incorrect (mentioned UK instead of Australia) and have not used the correct formatting. I have inserted a spoiler warning (at the start of the Storylines section) using the correct Wiki formatting.

As this is an article which can be read world wide, some viewers of Neighbours may not wish to be informed of upcoming storylines. The article should be directed at all readers, not just those in Australia because the show originates in Australia. Genius12 17:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Senior Cast Members... why?

Just wondering; why are the actors who have been with the show for years been put up in the infobox? It seems like clutter to me, especially seeing as there is a cast list below that. Hardcore gamer 48 02:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Putting a link to the cast section with the infobox there at the moment would just look stupid. I prefer the infobox that was there before, with the link to the cast section. J Di talk 10:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Aboriginal character

Has Neighbours ever featured an Aboriginal character, actor or storyline? 04:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember, to be honest. Why do you need to know, may I ask? Hardcore gamer 48 08:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The show has featured at least one Aboriginal character and/or actor in the past. I don't recall any Aboriginal-related storylines as such. Note that Neighbours is set in Melbourne, there aren't many Aborigines there! 217.155.20.163 22:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there was a storyline once back in the 80s where Paul was going to build on to Lassiter's, but the site turned out to be an Aboriginal burial ground. Some aboriginal women came to his office to ask him to reconsider.

According to PerfectBlend.net, the only Aboriginal character who has appeared on Neighbours was Sally Pritchard Swanny 07:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable celebrity guest appearances for 2007

This could really do with some citations, as some of these seem highly dubious. Andrew G and Emma Bunton are plausible, but Jo Whiley? Michael Parkinson? Julian Clary? 217.155.20.163 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Michael Parkinson is a true one - he has been seen by more than one person filming with Neighbours cast members. No citation as such though - it hasn't appeared in a magazine or anything.

How is it they are highly dubious? They are TV personalities, making an appearance in a different TV show. Happens all the time! Clary even did an Who Do You Think You Are? It is not like we are suggesting John Major is appearing. Melbn 08:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I admit it's purely subjective, based on the sort of people who have cropped up on the show in the past. Parky - fair enough, he may be a fan, who knows. However, I just can't imagine Jo Whiley or Julian Clary popping up in the Neighbours universe for some reason. (Do Australians even know who Jo Whiley is?) 217.155.20.163 23:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
No, Australians do not know who Jo Whiley is, but really Neighbours is produced primarily for a UK audience: many, many more viewers watch the show in the UK than they do in Australia (where the show gets less-than one million viewers per episode), the BBC partly funds the show, and the BBC reviews scripts before they are produced. Clive James, a Parkinson style TV personality, has himself appeared on Neighbours. Wasn't someone from the Pet Shop Boys also on Neighbours once? There are all sorts of reasons why TV and radio personalities make guest appearances in other shows, be it because they are a personal fan of the show, or as a requirement to fulfil contractual obligations to their network (eg for cross-promotional reasons, where both shows receive additional publicity). Several rather controversial (and somewhat "flamboyant") personalities have previously guested on Neighbours, such as Molly Meldrum, Warwick Capper and Shane Warne, so no real reason why the comparitively safe and inoofensive Clary can't. Melbn 01:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Links

Okay, I don't get the problem - people keep deleting links and frankly I think it's childish. Given it's the nf.com links that are deleted all the time I assume they are trying to lay the blame at pb's door, when it's absolutely nothing to do with us. We can all live in harmony etc. etc. I have put the links back in twice today, for them to be deleted twice. Be adult!

Lucy@nb

Robert Robinson

Someone keeps adding him to the "coming" section. Has this been confirmed? I keep adding a {{Fact}} tag but it keeps getting deleted. Kogsquinge 07:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it was confirmed in TV Week with pictures or something, or so people say. Hardcore gamer 48 11:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Reed

Lewis Reed is orphaned and should probably be linked from here. Just wanted to point that out. I would do it myself but I don't feel I know enough about the show. --Selket 05:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Cast list

Just a reminder that it is a list of CAST MEMBERS, not a list of characters. Therefore, the years reflect the time the ACTOR has been on the show. Also, "extended guest" is the same as "recurring". Adelaide Kane will not continue after her initial "recurring" contract is up. Sam Clark will. That is why Sam belongs in "current cast members" and Adelaide belongs in "recurring cast members". Kogsquinge 20:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So... why was Christian Clark on the cast list if he was only on for three months? Hardcore gamer 48 00:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Christian was an exception because he was in the opening credits. Kogsquinge 07:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

But with all due respect, how do you know Adelaide won't be in the new opening credits? Sam isn't in it yet, either. Unless there's some website I don't know of that shows you the new opening... : S Hardcore gamer 48 05:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hardcoregamer on that. Though I'm sure the reason why Christian was in the theme was only because his leave was sudden, he should have stayed on longer, making him permanent. The same goes with Adelaide, she could of stayed longer, though obviously due to her acting skills, she isn't good enough to remain on the show. I'd say that if Adelaide goes into the theme then that should make her a permanent. I'm sure Sam will though. Swanny 11:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

>_> Adelaide Kane is now on the opening credits. I suppose that makes her a main cast member now, right? Hardcore gamer 48 08:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I removed some external links per WP:EL, but my edits have been reverted by IPs (diff). I'd like to know why the person behind the IPs thinks the links I have removed are valid; most of the links I removed are to forums or fansites, neither of which are recommended in external links sections. J Di 21:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh so its you who has been annoying everyone by deleting links!

What's wrong with showing links to fan sites? The Neighboursfans.com forum link was removed and that's supposed to be very popular! Swanny 11:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided; links to discussion forums should not be included in external link sections unless the links are to official websites. J Di 11:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Recommended is the keyword. You're messing around with links to the core fan sites (of which a lot of the content and input here is from). Yes the links are messy but if you are linking to one fan site then it's fair enough that you link to all (I'd see less of a problem if you stripped all links except for those to the official site, IMDB and TV.com). SeK612 16:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I've not got a problem with that, it would make things easier. J Di 16:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely links to sites that have more information than the official site would be valid? I despair about this wiki, I really do. Lucy@NB

I have removed the "no more links" message when editing the neighbours page, there is no reason that this information should remain static forever, instead it should be free to be changed like the rest of Wikipedia. --Evan Roberts 18:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

J Di has reverted my deletion, and laughably told me to look at the discussion page! Perhaps if he had done so himself he would have seen that I had explained my edit above. As I have said, Wikipedia is a free to edit website, and if people can improve the list on links by adding new ones, no one should prevent them. J Di's stance is totally against both the rules and the spirit of Wikipedia --Evan Roberts 21:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest both Neighboursfans.com and perfectblend.net are added to the list of links, The first for its comprehensive summaries of episodes, and perfectblend for the articles and other information it provides. Both are well known and widely respected fansites that Neighbours fans may be interested in. --Evan Roberts 22:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's sensible to leave things as they are for the moment. A link to the official website and IMDB.com and TV.com keeps things simple and are considered acceptable by Wikipedia. SeK612 10:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Why? Other wikipedia pages for tv shows have external links to fansites? why can't neighbours? No point in keeping things simple for the sake of it, so unless someone gives good reasons not to I will add the above sites tomorrow. --86.147.35.39 16:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it (I may be wrong), the regulations regarding the submission of External Links allows for informative fansites but not fanforums. Therefore all of the forums were deleted about a week ago. However there were complaints against the links being selective in this way and I think it was decided that it would be fairer to all concerned if all links (bar the official site, IMDB and TV.com) were deleted rather than some being allowed and some not. There's a statement to that effect further up this thread. -- Analog Kid 16:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That's plain stupid. Akin to banning football forever just because of a bit of fighting between rival players. If I complain about IMDB being allowed while other informative sites aren't, are we to remove that link too? Other soaps on Wikipedia haven't taken such drastic action, so I don't see why Neighbours should either. Neighboursfans homepage plus perfectblend should be added as valuable resources, as far as I can tell no other Neighbours fansites provide particularly useful services or information that these two don't. Simple decision. --86.147.35.39 18:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia guidelines are fairly clear as to what is desired for external links (if anything articles should have little or no external links with the focus on the content within articles than linking elsewhere). Other television articles, such as The OC, also have adopted the official link only route despite having several prominent fan sites. SeK612 18:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes the wikipedia guidelines are fairly clear, and it states that external links are welcome if they provide meaningful relevant content that supplements the Wikipedia article. Both the sites I have listed above fulfil this criteria more so than either IMDb or TV.com. Why useless commercial sites should be favoured above informative fansites I have no idea. You reference the OC page as another example of this silly policy, but a quick search of about a dozen popular TV programmes (including Home and away) show that the vast majority do link to fansites and have at least half a dozen links. --86.147.35.39 01:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
As a side point, I've just noticed the three current links are also displayed in the infobox at the top right, so they're on the page twice. So really the External Links section at the bottom is now technically redundant. Can we make an argument for getting rid of it altogether? No links section, no fights (as logic would seem to dictate). -- Analog Kid 19:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yea why not get rid of Wikipedia alltogether, get rid of loads of fights that way! This argument is totally against both the spirit and the policy of this website. --86.147.35.39 01:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia not a link database. There are several fan sites which could be linked to here but several began adding multiple links (funnily enough the ones that appear to be forced back into the link section) which caused problems. The fact remains that this current setup is accepted by Wikipedia (Imdb.com and TV.com have special templates to add them into articles so they are valid). SeK612 07:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Please, while wikipedia may not be a links database (who said it was?) links are allowed. You justify Imdb.com and TV.com not on their merits, but merely on the fact that they have a template! In any case all links have been deleted now. Are we going to continue this insane policy for the rest of wikipedia and delete all links on all pages? If not, why the exception for neighbours? Yes people may add too many links, which is against wikipedia policy so they shall be deleted. But you have no justification for breaking the spirit of wikipedia by deleting all links. External links play a very useful role on this website, let's not let some petty arguments get rid of this service, in the same way we don't let arguments prevent us from creating an encyclopedia. --217.42.236.66 13:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
IMDB.com and TV.com are accepted as links for all television, movie and celebrity articles across Wikipedia. Besides all three of the sanctioned links are kept intact via the info box so there is no need for external links section if these are the only links being allowed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.156.44.1 (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
But they aren't the only links allowed, That's the point. Again, why have useless commercial sites that barely provide any information above and beyond this article acceptable, while useful resources that are dedicated to the soap not allowed, it makes zero sense.
Perhaps not but they are accepted by Wikipedia (check the code used in linking it's specifically designed for use within Wikipedia) and so are suitable for linking within the article as is the official Neighbours website. Whatever arguments about size of the other sites they are more susceptible to the external links guidelines.
As far as I'm concerned links should be given to Neighboursfans, Perfectblend and the smaller Erinsborough.com and Neighbours Source (I get the last two aren't rate as highly as the other more established sites but they do provide some content for fans). Since there has been a fair few problems (mostly just the stubborn edits from a host of guests) it doesn't seem unreasonable to strip all links out for the time being (bearing in mind that it's the smaller sites that suffer from such a move as the bigger fan sites aren't effected as much as they already have a big exposure amongst fans). SeK612 16:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, perhaps I've underestimated the problems the links have caused. It would nice if we could could come to an agreement at some point on a few useful sites to add, I'll leave it at that. The priority should be those sites that have a community behind them and are regularly updated, rather than small sites that are simply a hobby for the webmaster, your list seems reasonable. --Evan Roberts 19:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
There were problems and disagreements. Several sites decided that they wanted multiple links. There was also squabbling over the link positioning as several people felt that the order should be rearranged so the big sites were at the top.
I guess what's worth remembering is that all sites linked to benefit from the link (it's very much a case of Wikipedia doing the sites a favour) regardless of size of how established they are. This comes in the form of traffic due to the popularity of Wikipedia and its good rankings in search engines. SeK612 08:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Coming & Going Citations

I wanted to ask people about these, as I'm trying to help out with them. With Oliver Barnes, his arrival was confirmed in the Sunday Mail TV Guide (Queensland, Australia) on the Neighbours summary (January 30): "Will's brother arrives with startling news - and exposes Will as a fraud". Could that be good enough proof to remove his citation? (I guess it would only be until Monday or Tuesday anyway, when he moves to Current Cast). Also, Robert & Izzy's temporary reappearance was shown by pictures on a website (the link was in a certain nf.com forum). I would try and find it myself but my internet has slowed right down. Swanny 11:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That should be okay. Can't help you with the forum problem though. J Di 11:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay here: http://www.thesoapshow.com/features/maconthebox.htm is a website that confirms Rowena Wallace, Rachel Gordon, David Hoflin's arrivals, as well as Izzy and Robert's return. J Di can you use this as a source in the article. I don't know how. Shamrock27 15:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's on there now. Thanks. J Di 15:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.byronbay.org/?p=295 - Article confirming Cleopatra Coleman's arrival. I doubt we'll get a source for the departure of Kerry Mangel as she is presumably leaving with her on-screen mother. Source are unlikely to mention the departure of an extremely young child. So besides that, thats all referenced then, isn't it? Shamrock27 16:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can use that as a reliable source because it looks like a blog, but the {{unreferencedsect}} template can be removed as almost everything in that section is sourced now. J Di 16:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

http://tvweek.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=176573 - Here we go. Shamrock27 17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I found that earlier, but forgot all about it... Anyway, that's all of them except for the baby now, but as you said it's unlikely that a source for that'll be found. J Di 17:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the baby and Kyal Marsh. It has been reported in the Herald Sun but I haven't found a proper online source that we can use yet. Shamrock27 17:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21128325-27258,00.html - There. It is mentioned near the end of the article. Shamrock27 23:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21559081-27258,00.html - Source for Claudine Henningsen's departure. 86.138.244.0 13:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Locations/Groups, Societies and Competitions

I was wondering, is it necessary to have all of that info on the article which relates to Erinsborough itself when there is already an article with SOME of the information on it. I tried doing it myself, by moving the location list and the whole GSC section to the Erinsborough article, and just provide a link to it, but it got reverted. Swanny 07:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The detailed info about the Locations/Groups, Societies and Competitions is pretty pointless. This is meant to be an encyclopedia article about the show (you know, this fictional thing that is prodcued, scripted and directed, acted, taped, and broadcast), not an encyclopedia about the fictional story world within the show's story. Format 07:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I see what you mean. If the information is there, I'm not saying it's not useful, it could at least be moved to the Erinsborough article, seeing as the main Neighbours article is getting large, where as the Erins article isn't that big. I don't think the GSC section is that useful, though I saw that the Home and Away article has a similar thing. If it should all stay, then it should at least be moved to where it better belongs. Swanny 11:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I moved the two sections again, seeing as there was no other objection to it. It is also good as well because the article was 43kb long, and after moving it it is now only 33kb. It looks a lot neater now too. I hope that it was a good idea, because I certainly think so.Swanny 07:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Rachel Gordon's character

I can't find anything that confirms RG's character will be Dr. Jessica Raines. Does anyone have a source for this? Kogsquinge 05:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no source for the character name as no-one knows yet. Someone's just kept annoyingly adding it in all the time - probably the same person that insists Rowena Wallace is playing Mary Crombie, the OAP that Joe, Toby and Sky lived next to in the country. Analog Kid 11:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Cast Cull

Why are several of the main staff leaving in 2007?

Is this part of cost cutting,because of low viewing figures? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.134.148.134 (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Stephanie McIntosh, Damien Bodie and Ben Nicholas are leaving of their own accord to pursue other things. Adelaide Kane was axed, possibly due to her less-than-Oscar-winning acting. Kyal Marsh was axed because his character's family was gone and he had become "dead wood". It is unknown why Sianoa Smit-McPhee and Nell Feeney are going. Kogsquinge 23:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The latter two are probably leaving to avoid being typecast! --Ninevah 05:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently Nell Feeney said at one of the Neighbours Nights in mid January that she wanted to stay, but the network wanted her gone. She was also encouraging Timmins fans to write in to Ten. Nell finishes recording this month though, so bar a last minute u-turn, Janelle is history. Analog Kid 17:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Main cast and recurring cast

How is it decided whether a character is a main character or recurring character? There was a lot of insistance that Lolly is currently a recurring character, when it turned out after all that she is now a main character. I ask this because of whether Glenn is staying as a permanent or is still a recurring. I'm guessing also that Oliver is a permanent, even though he hasn't been added to the opening titles yet. Neither Glenn or Oliver has decided to leave the show yet, so can someone please explain for me, because I cannot understand. Swanny 00:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)`

Now that she is in the opening credits, Lolly is a main cast member. Glenn hasn't been confirmed as a main cast member (I think she'll only stick around for a few months to stir up trouble for Boyd & Janae). I think it's safe to say that Oliver will be permanent, given that they're saying he'll "fill the void" left by Christian Clark. Kogsquinge 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cast section re-organisation

I have reorganised this section, updating headings and putting cast into alphabetical order for ease of reference. The guest appearances section has been incorporated into this 'Cast' section. Genius12 18:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Uhh... the cast list has always been in alphabetical order. Kogsquinge 22:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Oliver's departure

I have it on good authority that it's mentioned in the February edition of the Australian lifestyle magazine, Madison. It features quotes from Tom himself, so I wouldn't have thought it'd be fictitious. Analog Kid 00:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you possibly get a scan for us? Personally, I don't doubt you, but other people might... Hardcore gamer 48 03:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it's trustworthy, because it's on a forum, but here's a link to where somewhere typed it out (or a portion of it at least): http://www.neighboursfans.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15544 Swanny 10:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's on a forum it doesn't necessarily mean it's automatically rubbish. I'll ask for a scan though. If the story turns out to be false, I'll be happy to delete it myself (I don't have any complex where I have to be right all the time, so that's no problem). Analog Kid 12:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I was just on my way to take it down, but I see it already has been. As a specific magazine was mentioned and actual quotes posted, this sounded more genuine than the usual 'friend of a friend of a friend' stuff. However the story's now been thrown into doubt, so it's probably best to leave Tom off the going list for now. We'll see what progresses. The original poster was an unknown, so it could have went either way. Analog Kid 23:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Larkins' return

It has also been posted on nfans.com that Andrew Larkins is returning as Tom Scully - he's going to be the principal of Erinsborough High. I haven't put this on the live page yet considering the skepticism over the Tom Oliver thing, but the person who announced this has been very reliable with her information in the past (she's well respected on nfans). I shall wait for a press/media article though before adding him if you all wish. Analog Kid 12:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Tom Scully the priest that Susan dated? Why would he be a school principal? Kogsquinge 04:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
He quit the priesthood during his first stint. As for school principal, why not? Apparently he already has teaching experience from his years at theological college. Analog Kid 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Hart

It was confirmed in this week's TV Week that his character's name is Adam Rhodes. Please don't delete it again. Kogsquinge 09:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well next time please mention where the info comes from. Otherwise you have to rely on the source and that didn't prove anything. Not everyone does read TV Week. Swanny 11:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Past Neighbours Regular Characters

Is it possible to find a place to link to Past Neighbours Regular Characters from this page? It seems to have a page of past characters. Squids'and'Chips 17:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not have them on this page? I was very surprised to see no sign of Clive Gibbons here. --Eamonnca1 23:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Cast section

I have re-inserted the cast info into the main article, as is done with other soaps. Why should Neighbours be any different? Kogsquinge 01:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved it into a new article as the Neighbours article was fairly big, and I looked at the Home and Away article and they only have the main cast section on their article. Swanny 06:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

But just because the H&A article is like that, does it mean this article should? And does it really matter how big an article gets? I think it's only fair that recurring members get mentioned, as well as coming & going, etc. Hardcore gamer 48 06:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess not. It was just an idea I had and people weren't happy with it so we leave it how it was. Thanks anyway. Swanny 21:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Adam Scully?

Someone reintroduced Adam Scully into Comings and Goings. This time it did show a source, though it's from a magazine. Can someone please verify it? Swanny 21:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Adam Scully is going to be on when his father Tom becomes principal of the High School.

Order of the cast list

Who here agrees the original way the cast list was organised (alphabetical order according to actor) was much better than the way it currently is (in order by year)? I'm tempted to change it back to that, but I'd like to hear everyone elses opinions first. Hardcore gamer 48 05:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back, as per other soap articles. Kogsquinge 07:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

G classification

some one added this piece of speculation/conjecture regarding the show's g classification: even thou it deals with such subjects as unwed pregnancies, teenage sex, adultery, verbal and physical abuse and attempted murder.

Now, where the WP article says that the g classifications designates the show as suitable for viewers of any age, that is a description of the g classification, not of the show itself. If anyone thinks that those elements should not be in a g classification program, then a complaint should be made to the australian government body that sets up these program classifications. Format 19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Weird new names

Some weird new names have been added to the Coming list. Rachel Gordon's character's name was put as Courtney King (which I removed), and three other actors were added, with character names added. The source was put as the Adelaide Advertiser. I didn't remove it just in case it was true, but I can't find any other info on the net about it. Could someone try and verify it? Swanny 05:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I move to delete them. It seems suspicious that these would be confirmed in the Adelaide Adviser and yet none of them would have leaked onto the numerous big Neighbours websites. Unless someone is able to provide a scan or something else, I think its best to removie it.Shamrock27 13:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Damien Bodie's departure date

Latest spoilers posted on NF.com seem to indicate Dylan's departure on 2nd April [1], however I can't be sure whether its that day or the previous episode (30th March), so I added to the Coming and Goings both dates. Hope that's ok, if anyone can confirm which day, that would be good. Swanny 12:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

New and returning actors

Scott Johnson, Rowena Wallace, Penny Cook, Andrew Larkins and Fiona Corke are all listed as just temporary for their upcoming roles. Does anyone know how long these roles are going to go for? Penny Cook is supposed to be on for a few months, with a possibility of an extension. I don't know about the rest though. Swanny92 01:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Rowena Wallace signed on for two months. As for the others, until there is evidence that they will be permanent, they are listed as temporary. I don't think any of the mentioned actors will be permanent. Kogsquinge 07:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Template for cast members

I was thinking that seeing as there are many different articles relating to the characters/actors of Neighbours, how would the idea go for having a template placed somewhere in the article linking to the different articles about them. That was my first idea. The second idea would be to get rid of either the articles about the characters, and redirect them to the actor page, or the other way around. I don't see the need to have both an article for the List of Neighbours characters and List of cast members of Neighbours, when they are the same, just the other way around. Swanny92 02:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comings/goings

I have deleted the actors who are leaving the show from the "current cast members" table, making it easier to tell who is staying and who is going. Thoughts? Kogsquinge 03:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. They are still current cast members for now and seeing them gone makes it look as they have left already. And isn't the current cast members table supposed to be non-spoiler? Can you also please explain why you removed the descriptions I put in there? I don't like people removing something without an explanation. Swanny92 03:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, firstly, the "Current cast members" section DOES contain spoilers because of the dates (eg. Nell Feeney - Janelle Timmins - 2005-2007). Secondly, I removed the descriptions because other soap articles do not have them. Kogsquinge 07:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, can you please explain it in the edit summary next time? But still I think all current cast members should be left in the table, even if they are leaving. If you want to see all current characters in one table, then you can just look there. If you have to scroll down to see other current characters, people may be shown debuts that other people may not want to know. Therefore, I think it should be kept the way it is, unless an agreement is made otherwise.Swanny92 09:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Swanny92. "Current Cast members" is a list of cast members whom are currently a part of the show. It does not matter if they are going, at present they are cast emebers. And the excuse to "make it easy" to see whom is staying and going is void when there is a 'Going' List just below. Shamrock27 14:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Shamrock. One other thing I mentioned earlier was that the Comings and Goings section is a spoiler area, though the Current characters section is being made a spoiler area too by having it say the year that they are leaving (e.g. as Kogsquinge said: Nell Feeney - Janelle Timmins - 2005-2007). Should it just be the Comings and Going section as a spoiler section, and so remove the years they are leaving from the Current section, or just leave it as it is, and so have both sections as spoilers. I am fine with either option. Swanny92 23:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving again are we?

I don't know if anyone will agree but I move all of this be deleted except for a line or two about ITV and Five wanting to buy the rights and the BBC article saying they committed to the show at a price as part of the UK Broadcasts section. The rest is a lot of speculation and mis-information (For example RTE1 doesn't air the show until the following, it is infact RTE2 at the same time as the BBC broadcast.) A lot of the info seems to be pulled from absolutely nowhere and made up of assumptions and irrelevent info. I might also add the very same discussion is held every time the contract comes up for renewal. Shamrock27 17:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Neighbours/Neighbors

I thought information on Wikipedia was to be written in American English. So shouldn't "neighbours" be spelt "neighbors" when not referring to the show's title? Kogsquinge 00:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

True but it's an Australian article since it's based on an Australian show, so therefore I think we should leave it in Australian English. Swanny92 08:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Swanny. It may be an American website, but it is based on something Australian. Therefore, Australian English should be the way to go. Hardcore gamer 48 07:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree but for different reasons. The name of the show is "Neighbours". If they spelt it "Neighbors", even if that was a misspelling in Australia, then that is what the title would be. --Nicko 10:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"I thought information on Wikipedia was to be written in American English." You thought wrong. Please read WP:ENGVAR. Waggers 12:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Current Event tags on characters articles...

I must admit, it's rather annoying to be seeing all these "Current Event" tags (put up by Kogsquinge) on the current character articles (For example, Paul Robinson (Neighbours) or Susan Kennedy; see what I mean?). I was under the impression those tags were only to be used for real-life occurances, not for soap opera characters. Am I the only one who thinks that it's a waste to have all those tags up? Now, I won't delete them yet, but I will as soon as I hear that other people agree with me (unless someone beats me to it, lol). Hardcore gamer 48 07:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think they look absolutely ridiculous and should be removed at once. They should all be deleted as they serve absolutely no purpose and should not be used to document the changing storylines of a fictional character. Removed them all (I think.) All majot chanmges like that should be discussed before they are editing the pages. Fictional characters aren't current events! Shamrock27 15:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ned Parker

He is not leaving. Someone keeps editing to say he is, but he is not. I have looked in every possible way to find some evidence but cant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaGazBoi (talk • contribs)

As it says in the link:
DHS 19 April 2007: Former Neighbours star Dan O'Connor learns some swing dance moves from Kelly Krusic of swing patrol in the lead up to the swing dance for Red X charity benefit. Published: The Herald Sun - April 20, 2007 Page: 013 Edition: FIRST Keywords: <- Dance -> Pic. Cameron Tandy
That seems like evidence to me... but it may not be entirely true. We should leave Dan O'Connor out of the Going list for now, and put him back in if we get a better source (though, it was published in The Herald Sun, apparently. Hardcore gamer 48 12:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is just an accident, personally. No word has been revealed on DFan leaving, neither in the press or in any spoilers. Plus, knowing that he is still filming, he wouldn't as yet be a "Former" star anyway. He souldn't be added to the Going list unless there is official confirmation. Shamrock27 14:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy at the BBC

Removed whole piece. Unsourced speculation and assumptions when the only relevent info given was already in the article under "United Kingdom broadcasts" and was sourced. Shamrock27 16:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ned Parker is not leaving. I have 100% information on this as I am friends of the family. He resigned his contract in April 2007.

Why is "Neighbours" such a hot property in the UK now?

Can anyone provide any more background on the apparent bidding war between the BBC, ITV, and Five for the rights to show Neighbours in the UK? I wasn't aware that the soap was becoming more popular or picking up more viewers, so I'm a little bit mystified as to why FremantleMedia's asking price has jumped from £25,000 per episode to over £80,000 (and counting).

I'm also left wondering why ITV and Five have taken a sudden interest in Neighbours, when presumably there have been countless other opportunities for them to poach the show.

Out of interest, does anyone know how much the BBC were paying for Neighbours back in the late 1980s, when Kylie and Jason were still in the show and the number of viewers was well into eight figures? I seem to remember reading that it was only about £1000 per episode, though I may be mistaken. 217.155.20.163 18:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Viewing figures are consistently high, despite a lot of complaints about the new characters. Still, £80,000 doesn't seem like a lot compared to how much it costs to make an episode of Eastenders --MartinUK 12:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Eastenders supposedly costs about £250,000 an episode, but that's an in-house production and it goes out at prime time. £80,000 is one heck of a lot of money for a daytime import. 217.155.20.163 00:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Storylines section

I believe that the Storylines section is getting way too long. It seems that as major storylines go along, they get added to the section, making it very extensive. It starts off by describing how Neighbours was in the 80s and 90s yet as it comes to describing around 2004, it mentions and describes every (or most) major storylines that has happened since then. I think the whole section should be rewritten to make it shorter, or change it just so it lightly describes how the storylines work in Neighbours. The Storylines in Neighbours article I think should be rewritten as well, as it appears to look very messy. Opinions anyone? Swanny92 04:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's odd that the storyline section skips most details, then jumps straight to 2004. Another issue (not really an issue at all, just a query...); why were the images of Karl and Susan, and Toadie and Steph replaced with Frazer and Rosie? Not that I'm complaining, but why fix something that ain't broke? Hardcore gamer 48 08:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, every storyline that is "Big" seems to be added and it really isn't nescessary. Neither is the amount of detail in which is mentioned - Boyd and Janae's marriage break-up for example. And the new image will be deleted, it isn't allowed to be used. Shamrock27 16:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I look at that section, and think "I never going to trawl through all that: it is too long". It needs to be a broad strokes overview of storylines. It needs a description of the original stories, and then the general direction stories took. Not an actual description of all the stories from a certain period, just an overview briefly mentioning maybe some representative stories. Format 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone want to give it a go? At this rate, we're going to have every storyline from the 2006/2007+ on the same page. It seems fine until the plane crash, after that it realy needs edited.Shamrock27 09:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What would need to be noted on the Storylines section? I could imagine the plane crash being notable in the section but after nothing else is overly noteworthy. Swanny92 10:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, its got to the point where every single big storyline is mentioned, with every detail intact. It is getting ridiculously long. Plus it makes no sense: the article at first describes types of storylines and examples, then suddenly shifts into long drawn-out descriptions of current storylines. Plane Crash - definitely, but it needs shortened a lot. Then something like: "In recent years, notable storylines have included", then mentioned Baby Kerry: the paternity and leukaemia and maybe a few other examples but thats it. Shamrock27 15:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I managed to shorten the storylines section a bit from the plane crash onwards. I mentioned the RobCam storyline and how the 2006 season was highly dramatic, as well as the Guy/Katya storyline (as they were the two big storylines with signature villains). Also mentioned the Max kill Cam storyline as it was a "sub-story" from the RobCam one. Also mentioned the Karl/Susan re-wedding but that's it. The article was tagged as "too long" which was an issue I brought up a while ago, though no one seemed to care too much. The storylines one is the really long one, but there's plenty of other places which can be cut out (or preferably shortened). My one idea which got reverted was to leave in the Current cast section and move the Recurring, C+O, Cast deaths and Before they were stars sections to a new article. It would reduce the length of the article and also may help reduce vandalism to it as well (seeing as it's mainly the Neighbours article which is targeted). If we do that then it could keep the character articles (at the moment there are so many) together and fluently linked. Any other ideas? Swanny92 06:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Before they were stars

Some of the entries here didn't really fit. I've removed people who either (a) became massive stars before even leaving Neighbours (e.g. Kylie) or (b) are still arguably best known for their Neighbours roles than for anything they've done since leaving. Heck, even Stephanie McIntosh was in there, and as of May 2007 she's still in the broadcast episodes! 217.155.20.163 23:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Before they were Stars means that these people here started their career at Neighbours, and worked their way up. Stephanie Mc, Nat B and the others have a right to be there. Swanny92
Er, no. The phrase "before they were stars" implies that these people weren't stars during the time they were on Neighbours, but became stars after that. Russell Crowe is probably the most obvious example, and Guy Pearce and Alan Dale are arguably right up there too. Kylie certainly doesn't count (as she was a big star before she even left the show) and Brooke Satchwell most definitely doesn't count either (as Neighbours is undoubtedly the highlight of her career so far). With Steph Mc and Nat B, it's far too early to say. I've changed the section back in the absence of any more convincing arguments. 217.155.20.163 00:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think it would be stupid not to include those people in there. Neighbours was one of the places that Kylie started her career, so she should have a right to be included in the section. Brooke Satchwell started her career at Neighbours, and has had other roles and won a Logie after Neighbours, so she should be included there too. I think the main problem on your side is the name of the section. Personally I think the name is fine as no one else seems to have a problem with it, unless more arguments are made, I am reverting the edit. Swanny92 01:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Alan Dale was a popular/recognised star through a three year lead role in The Young Doctors before Neighbours even began. But the section is really very POV. Format 02:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Here it is mentioned on the Neighbours page on the Channel Ten site "The multi award-winning series has been a springboard to international success for many Australian actors, including Kylie Minogue, Jason Donovan, Craig McLachlan, Guy Pearce, Natalie Imbruglia, Daniel MacPherson, Holly Valance, Delta Goodrem and Natalie Bassingthwaighte, to name just a few. Internationally-acclaimed and Academy Award winner Russell Crowe was also a guest actor in the late 80s." Swanny92 02:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who is a regular on Neighbours is already a household name in much of the world. 'Before' is a US-centric idiocy. --MartinUK 10:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes the section is not neutral, and is arguably original research. Format 19:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Is there any way that the article can be semi-protected? There just seems to be too much vandalism and incorrect edits lately. Swanny92 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

False imprisonment

Someone keep reverting the page to say Sky endured false imprisonment. No, she didn't. That was Pepper Steiger. Sky merely endured imprisonment. Editors, please follow the link to false imprisonment and find out what it means before reverting again. When someone is imprisoned by the police, even if innocent, that is not "false imprisonment". Format 09:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)



Current and recurring characters

Benjamin Hart (Adam)

What confirmation do we have that he is a regular? He's not in the opening, he is credited as guest/recurring and he's not even in any Channel Ten promos. Personally I think he will be a regular, but unless we have proof he should stay in the recurring section. Kogsquinge 07:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone at Number 30 are credited as a guest and Will was credited as a guest, and they (except Oliver) show/ed up on the opening titles. He's only been in the show for two episodes, give it a chance. Swanny92 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
On the Perfect Blend spoiler news section, Ben Hart and Fletcher O'Leary's debuts weren't mentioned as "guest appearances" or "guest stints", they said that they were joining the cast. That doesn't prove that they aren't guest characters, BUT when Rowena Wallace, Kristie Jandric etc. were reported, they said that they would be involved in guest appearances, and Rowena Wallace was in the show for a few months. I think this can clarify the difference between guests and current cast members for now.
In relation to Oliver, the Neighbours.com character section has Oliver listed as a current cast member. As Toadie's name is on Wikipedia by "Toadie Rebecchi", and it was going by how his name is shown on neighbours.com, then we should do the same for Oliver, and have him in the section that he is on neighbours.com. It still doesn't answer why he isn't in the opening titles however. Swanny92 06:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Both David Hoflin and Benjamin Hart are listed in the PerfectBlend website character section as regular characters. Oliver basically took over Will's storylines and Adam is set to become part of the next big supercouple with Pepper. The only reason why they are not featured in the credits is due to the major revamp of the show. They've filmed a new theme sequence most likely including Adam, Oliver and the new family. What use is it to update the previous theme if its only going to be around for a month. I suggest, we keep Adam and Oliver in the regular cast section, and then we see what happens on the revamp launch date.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.28.232.196 (talk)
I heard that Benjamin Hart only had a six-month contract with a chance of extending it, so it's not confirmed as yet whether he is sticking around. Penny Cook, who plays Prue Brown, she was signed up for a few months contract with the chance of an extension too. So if Benjamin Hart is a main character, shouldn't Prue Brown be too? Of course not! So I reckon Benjamin Hart should be removed, be put as a recurring character up until the time that he appears on the opening credits. Because, if he doesn't appear, then he is not a main character. Furthermore, I believe that Fletcher O'Leary (Mickey) being put as a regular character is ridiculous, they should take him down until we got confirmation that he's sticking around.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocaholic29 (talk • contribs)
Chocaholic, did you even read the previous posts? Read my previous post and then discuss it again. What you're saying isn't overly that convincing yet. Swanny92 08:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You are jumping to the conclusion that Benjamin Hart has been confirmed as a regular character. Has he? Taking in your previous posts, Swanny92, we are not talking about David Hoflin here, we all know he is sticking around. Benjamin Hart is a completely different character, he's not in the No. 30 crowd, he's simply dating one of them. Unless you find the correct source to say that Benjamin Hart is going to be a full-time, three-episodes-a-week contracted Neighbours actor working on the set most days like every other current starring Neighbours actor, then we shouldn't be putting him in the main cast section. Just like Kogsquinge said, he's not in the opening sequence, he is currently in the show being credited as a guest character and he's not even in any Channel Ten promos as yet. It makes sense to add him as a main character if his face appears in the revamped opening titles, but we're all jumping ahead of ourselves. At the present time (We're in the present, we're not in the future), Benjamin Hart is a guest character. In the future, he may become a regular character, but he isn't now. Also, nobody is 100% sure if Hart is even staying longer than six months he was first contracted for. Swanny92, can you answer me that question: how long is Hart staying for? If you don't know, why are you even putting him in the regular cast section??? At the moment, he and Fletcher O'Leary are GUEST CHARACTERS, not STARRING REGULAR CHARACTERS. Do the correct thing. Chocaholic29 09:43, 22 June 2007

Three sources, all stating that Benjamin is joining the "Cast" to replace the large number of departures.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/a42612/former-hollyoaks-star-joins-neighbours.html#article_continue

http://entertainment.aol.co.uk/hollyoaks-actor-to-join-neighbours/article/20070213025109990004

Perfect Blend spoiler news section

Yes, he has signed an initial contract as all cast members do. Nicky, Christian, Natalie S, Ben, Sam and Adelaide all signed initial 3 month contracts before extensions, yet were ALL cast members. And the argument of opening titles means very little. David Hoflin has been in the show for months yet never added to the titles. Adelaide was added, even though it was common knowledge that she wasn't staying.

Shamrock27 12:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Parker family names

What is the source for the names of the new family members? The names were added in though no source was added for them (apart from the Perfect Blend site which doesn't mention their names as far as I know) Swanny92 02:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the message board where it confirms the names:
http://www.neighboursfans.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=16264&st=195
Apparently it was mentioned in TV Week this week. chocaholic29 13:00, 25 June 2007
Ok thanks, I haven't been able to get on there for a few days so I haven't been able to check. Swanny92 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of names, I removed 'Barnes' and left Jane Hall's character as Rebecca. She is his birth mother whilst Barnes is the name of his adopted family. I don't think it will be her surname. Shamrock27 11:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh cool thanks. I forgot about that when I added it in. chocaholic29 13:00, 25 June 2007

Opening Titles Section

I removed this. Poorly researched and written, and overly obsessed with every change made to the 2007 season. Not only was it unnecessary but I don't think we need to be aware of every single change this year alone. Perhaps someone may want to write a better version that mentions previous styles without relying on needless factoids. Shamrock27 17:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Character articles

I really want to know other people's opinions on this matter as no one responded last time. I mentioned that there seem to be so many character lists at the moment, there is:

  1. List of Neighbours characters (the very original)
  2. List of cast members of Neighbours (a more newer one though doesn't look as good as the first, layout isn't that neat etc.)
  3. Past characters of Neighbours (a very pointless article in my opinion)
  4. Current characters of Neighbours (useful enough for me)
  5. Recurring characters of Neighbours (good enough to keep)

My opinion is to keep Number 1, 4 and 5, and have 2 and 3 redirect to 1. There isn't any need to have three articles that explain pretty much the same thing as number 1, and as 1, 4 and 5 are based on characters, compared to the cast members list, I say just keep it in characters format like most other articles, as it seems a more understandable way (not all people will know the actor's names etc.). I really would like some people's opinions on this matter and they will be appreciated. Swanny92 13:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur, yes. Speaking of the list of recurring characters, I removed both Sebastian (Will) and Oliver Barnes from the list. Both are/were official cast members, not recurring. Thought I'd mention it here when I saw it.Shamrock27 20:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Too many edits have been made trying to say that Oliver is a recurring character which I and others keep reverting when it is absolutely definite that he is a main cast member. Shamrock (and others), what is your opinion on changing the articles to, like which ones should be kept etc.? Swanny92 01:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with keeping 1, 4 and 5. However, I kinda like #3 Past characters of Neighbours because it has the episode range aswell, which is kind of interesting and seems like a lot of hard work went into, but #1 is definitely the best and easiest one to understand. #2 needs to be gotten rid of, it's not as good as one and a bit annoying. I reckon that if we can incorporate episode range into article #1, then we can get rid of #2 and #3. Chocaholic29 04:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The episode range is easy to get, it was copied straight off Perfect Blend anyway. I reckon 2 and 3 should redirect to 1 and just keep the others. So far everyone appears to agree with me so anyone object? Swanny92 06:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. I,4 and 5 are of most use.Shamrock27 10:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, keep #1, 4 and 5, lose #2 and #3. Chocaholic29 00:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok I'll see if I can combine the info so it just goes through 1, 4 and 5, including the episode tenures and any missing information. If anybody wants to help out, that would be great. Swanny92 08:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: "Neighbours Rocky Horror Show cast?"

I've found this on YouTube just now. Would this be credible enough (I realise YouTube links aren't that great as sources, but it still shows Marcella Russo, Ian Smith, and other Neighbours actors as RHS characters) for at least a mention somewhere? Hardcore gamer 48 11:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is a vast majority of the Neighbours cast doing this, then it may be able to get a mention. But if it is a few Neighbours actors, then it should just be left for the actors' separate pages. Chocaholic29 00:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can remember, it was all Neighbours cast members in the show. There was Maria Mercedes as Frank (0_o;), Ian Smith as the Criminologist, Marcella Russo as Magenta, Marisa Warrington as both Columbia and Trixie, Blair McDonough as Rocky Horror, Alan Fletcher and Natalie Bassingwaithe as Brad and Janet, (I think) Brett Swain as Riff Raff, apparently Terence Donovan and Ben Nicholas were in it somewhere too. Other sources (not for most of the actors, unfortunately, but the YouTube video takes care of most of that): here and here. Hardcore gamer 48 05:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

New Official Cast Photo

A new cast photo has been taken to coincide with the revamp. All new characters are there, except for Libby. You have Adam, All Parkers including Mickey, Oliver and Rebecca, so that must mean they are all contract and not guest. Also featured is James Sorenson who is playing the role of Oliver's brother, though I am not sure of his character name.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1305/716558769_316baba5ea_o.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.207.39 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 5 July 2007

Thanks for that, I've never heard anything about James Sorenson joining the cast, and I wonder if it means Jane Hall will be a permanent cast member. It was already figured that Mickey and Adam were main characters, and Oliver is credited as a main character already. Swanny92 23:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Recording/broadcast gap

Isn't the gap between recording and broadcast three months? I ask because the Going Cast list says Nicky Whelan will leave onscreen in November. But she's quitting this month (on the 20th), so three months on should surely be late October? Analog Kid 10:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well no-one said anything to the contrary, so I've edited in October for Nicky Whelan to reflect the three month gap. If anyone knows for fact the gap is more than three months, feel free to change it back. Analog Kid 10:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe the gap is actually 4 months. Kogsquinge 03:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Analog Kid 16:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Cast photo in storyline section

A 2007 cast picture has been added to the top of the storyline section. Seems odd given that few cast members in that picture are mentioned in that section of the article, and several new actors in that picture are not mentioned anywhere in the storyline section at all. And the older cast pics, that illustrated appropriate sections of the storylines, are now all gone. WP is not about erasing history once it has passed. If something happened in the past, we keep it, even when it isn't current. We do not erase pics about a tv show just because they are about to be phased out of the show. And in many cases, the subjects of those pictures (the cast members/characters themselves) are still in the show, even if those actual pictures will soon come off the opening titles sequence. In any event, the storyline section describes those characters, so even if they leave the show, their pics should stay. So I have reinstated them. Format 01:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

People are still removing pics on the basis that "this has been taken off the credits sequences", and even "this is yet to debut". This article is about the entire show, past present and planned. We do not delete aspects of the article once that aspect is, say, removed from the titles sequence. It was once on the show, and illustrates that period of the show, and should always stay to illustrate that period of the show, as a sort of history. Please, in Wikipedia we do not erase history and rewrite the retrospective stuff and time goes on. The history is retained. Look at Search for Tomorrow and several other soap opera articles: many retain multiple obsolete title cards as part of the history of the show Format 19:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with this. If the whole "out-of-date" thing rang true, then why aren't character images replaced every episode? Hardcore gamer 48 11:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Characters' last names

People keep changing Steph and Susan's names back to Hoyland and Kinski, respectively. Steph recently referred to herself as Steph Scully, and I'm assuming Susan changed her name back to Kennedy when she remarried Karl. I also think the Janae Hoyland article should be moved back to Janae Timmins (as she referred to herself in the July 23 episode), but I wasn't able to do it because it is a "protected redirect" for some reason. Kogsquinge 03:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The characters are still billed as Hoyland, Hoyland and Kinski respectively in the closing credits so surely they should remain named as that on the cast list and their individual pages until the closing credits are updated to reflect the changes. Gmanuk2007 21:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The credits are notorious for being way behind what's going on in the actual show. I wouldn't have thought it necessary for Wikipedia to mirror that lag? Having said that I think Steph's still legally a Hoyland until her divorce comes through. Unless she officially changes her name back to Scully beforehand, which would seem pointless. She can be legally a Hoyland but still be known as Scully if that's what she wants. It just means she signs Hoyland on documents and gets mail in that name. Janae was never a Hoyland anyway, despite the credits. The marriage to Boyd was illegal (although they've never been pulled up for it, but that's probably the production team not paying attention... or throwing out Australian laws which don't fit their stories, one of the two). I don't know about Susan. Analog Kid 16:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Steph and Janae's bios on Neighbours.com have been changed to Scully and Timmins. Susan, however, is still listed as Kinski, so maybe she didn't change back to Kennedy. Kogsquinge 22:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
This all seems way too pedantic, and way too intense an obsession with minor details of relatively unimportant aspects of the fictional story world of the show. The page is a Wikipedia article about the entire show Neighbours, and here, this level of detail is probably overkill. I say use the most recent credits and be done with it. Worrying whether it is a mistake in the show or does not match the storyline is overkill and speculation. ps I think article Erica Kane handles the issue rather well. Melbn 20:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

HD filming

I've removed the note about HD picture format in the 'Broadcast' section of the infobox - Neighbours isn't yet being broadcast in HD, only filmed. The HD filming is mentioned further down the page - the infobox is for broadcast details only. Many thanks - Silver Nemesis 17:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC).

Move Janae Hoyland back to Janae Timmins

I think this would be a necessary move as she now goes by her maiden name, and I think it is what most people would recognise her by. Although I have been unable to move the page because it is protected. Could one of the administrators do this? Kogsquinge 07:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Paul Robinson article

On the Paul Robinson, for the section about the Fox storyline, I would just like to know why people seem to assume that Fox's name is apparently Cameron Fox. I never saw anything on the show about Paul naming him Cameron, and Fox was always credited on the show as "Fox". Where did the whole idea of him becoming "Cameron Fox" come from? Swanny92 02:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Valda Cassidy as a permenant character

Valda has returned as a permenant as alan fletcher told me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.86.24 (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The current issue of TV Week confirms that Valda is recurring. Kogsquinge 05:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Characters' titles in cast list

I believe that titles such as "Dr." should be included in the cast list. Other soap articles do it (case in point: The Young and the Restless, The Bold and the Beautiful), as well as shows like ER and Frasier, so I don't see why Neighbours should be any different. Kogsquinge 23:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If the title is in the credits, I see no problem with this. However, if it isn't then I think we should leave things be. Hardcore gamer 48 07:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The worst scripts on TV

After having to watch this poor excuse for drama because my wife and daughter are hooked on it, i must say that whoever comes up with or approves the storylines should be ashamed of themselves. I think this program and i use the term loosely is so badly produced that i would recomend that parents deny their children/family access to it at all costs, you would do less harm sending them to play on the freeway. Neighbours is an insult to Australians and an even bigger insult to drama in general. IT SHOULD BE SHUTDOWN BECAUSE IT IS UTTER GARBAGE.Horitira 11:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Opinions, opinions. Hardcore gamer 48 08:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No point putting anything original or challenging on in daytime, when most viewers would miss it, and half of those who would see it would complain about the violent/sexual bits.--MartinUK 19:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Daytime? Neighbours is a PRIMETIME show. Kogsquinge 05:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
In Australia, It's a prime time show. Here it's both (If you consider 5:35 Prime Time).

And Neighbours has had a great deal of money pumped into to it this year, so it's not going anywhere any time soon. Conquistador2k6 08:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as Horitira, but I do think that the 'Storylines' section is perhaps a bit generous. Over the past several years the storylines seem to be a pick-and-mix of the same recurring plot: "Younger cast member gets caught red-handed out of context and unfairly accused/judged/punished by the nearest authority figure among the adult cast". I seem to remember that 'Home and Away' also seemed to largely consist of the same monotonous plot, repeated over again with different cast members. The joke was that 'Home and Away' was presented here in the UK as 'grown-up' TV, whereas I gather it was regarded as 'teenage drama' in Australia, and occupied the 'Grange Hill' slot. Surely the fine nation of Australia can come up with something better! ChrisRed (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
These WP talk pages are to discuss the article, not the show that the article is about. Format (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Does suggesting that the 'Storylines' section of the article no longer reflects the show's actual content, and then going on to say why not count as 'discussing the article' in your books? (Note for future: 1. Read comment, 2. Comment on it) ChrisRed (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I was refering to the initial thread, not your comment. In future please assume good faith. Format (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Valda...

I recall seeing her name listed among all the other regulars on a questionairre located on the Neighbours website. I can't check now, as I've already taken it and I'm not allowed to even look at the questions. I'll leave it up to someone else to confirm this. No other recurring characters were mentioned. Now, this may fuel the debate (considering Kog's evidence of Joan Sydney being a recurring cast member), but I'd rather go with the website before TV Week. I'll leave the debate up to you guys from here. Hardcore gamer 48 09:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If the website listed her along with the regulars in the questionnaire then that would imply that she is onscreen for the foreseeable future. Plus the quote TV Week used was from a really old article and its possible that things have changed since then. Deep blue 00 11:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The article in TV Week stated that a Network Ten spokesperson confirmed she was a "regular guest". This means she will be practically a regular, but not technically a regular (like Morag on H&A). I think she should go in the recurring section for now, and if she is included in the next opening credits update, she can be put back in the main cast section. Kogsquinge 23:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

On the Perfect Blend website, the Story Editor for the show Luke Devenish did not deny when told "with Libby & Valda back as permenant characters..." So that would mean that they are permenant, and Joan Sydney was at the re-launch party only for regulars. And she might not be in the next credits like Oliver earlier in the year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.115.121 (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading TV Week for years, and not once have they ever been wrong. They stated that Valda is a "regular guest". That is not the same as "regular". She goes back into the recurring section until such time as she is added to the opening credits and TV Week is proven wrong. Kogsquinge 07:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


Well... the opening was updated yesterday and while Marco, Libby and Daniel were added, Valda was NOT. I told you! Kogsquinge 20:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, was Oliver ever added to the opening credits before the "new look" Neighbours? Hardcore gamer 48 08:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually she was added to the cast list during the end credits. Deep blue 00 22:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's true, she's listed before Pippa Black. Hardcore gamer 48 08:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we should have her in the permenant cast area now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.133.208 (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Joan Sydney is now at the beginning of the ending credits, after Ian Smith and Tom Oliver. I don't know what everyone else is thinking about the matter now, but I'm fairly certain that that proves she is a main cast member. Hardcore gamer 48 08:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Me too, i'll put her name back to a permenant

Rachel leaving

Is there any real point putting down that Rachel is leaving in October 2009. I mean, it's 2 years away, the information put on here about character's and actor's status'on the show should be more relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkbhe (talk • contribs) 04:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Frosie.jpg

Image:Frosie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Harold

I have corrected inaccuracies regarding his return storyline. He was not 'spotted by Marlene Kratz in Tasmania' - he was spotted by Helen in Erinsborough, having lived in Tasmania. True, Marlene had met him before Helen saw him, but as she'd never known him before his 'death' it cannot be said she 'spotted' him. To Marlene, Harold was just Ted from the Salvation Army. Smurfmeister (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Recurring characters

Can someone please explain to me why someone of the recurring characters on the list are still there even though they have not appeared in the show for some time? I tried removing them though it was reverted. Swanny92 (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

12 hour/24 hour time

These revert wars are getting ridiculous over trying to use 24 hour time in the article. All I know is that 12 hour time has always been used in this article, and I believe it should stay that way. 12 hour time is the default time used in Australia and therefore should be the default used in an Australian article, in other words, THIS ARTICLE. Just stop it, if you wanna argue over it, then argue here. Swanny92 (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

24hr time is far more straightforward to understand and is how online TV schedules appear in the UK. Considering that the UK has fare more viewers of the show than Australia, I think that the UK way of showing the time, less ambiguous, and clearly defining 08.30 as definitley morning rather than the unclear 8.30 as was previously in the article. If you do not understand 24hr timing, learn it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.61.204 (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Even if the show gets more viewers than in Australia, the subject of the article is Australian, and spelling, grammar, time, numbers etc should follow Australian rules, per WP:ENGVAR. Looking more specifically at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Times, either is equally acceptable although it does say, "Context determines whether the 12- or 24-hour clock is used; in both, colons separate hours, minutes and seconds (1:38:09 pm and 13:38:09)." As context goes back to the subject of the article and the subject of the article is Australian, Australian practices take precident. Secondly, there is no need to change something simply for the sake of change. If 12-hour has always been used, it probably should continue to be unless the consensus changes -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 22:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I've reverted those edits back to the original form of display if they're no other arguments over it. Swanny92 (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Have to say it looks weird reading it as, for example, '6:30pm' instead of '18:30', but if that's how it's always been written in the context and is the standard that Austraila uses then I personally don't see any problems with using the 12-hour clock.. Londonsista (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a small quibble I noticed from your reply, and I haven't looked at the article to know if it's done there or not, but when writing the time in 12-hour format, a space should be inserted between the numbers and "am"/"pm" (or "a.m."/"p.m."). -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't it like that already? Well I've seen it like that most of the time. Swanny92 (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I haven't actually read the article, I was just pointing out that the space should be included cause you hadn't included it in your reply above. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 07:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Lyn Cassidy?

Why is Lyn's article named "Lyn Cassidy". I've checked the Neighbours episode archive and there is no mention of the word Cassidy after 2005, meaning she obviously didn't change her name to Lyn Cassidy after she left. This article should be moved back to Lyn Scully unless some explanation is given. Swanny92 (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

UK Broadcasts on five

I have noticed that someone on the article has mentioned that the 1.45pm showing of Neighbours on five will only be a new epidsode on Analogue. Is this true? Thanx Onshore —Preceding comment was added at 19:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where it says this in the article but I watched the 1.45pm broadcast myself on Five on Sky Digital and it was a new episode. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.