Talk:List of former Home and Away characters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Alf and Sally's First Appearance

Using the numbering system that Home and Away has undertaken, Episode 1 is not the first episode it was second episode aired, as both appeared in the Pilot or Episode 0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan86 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Character pages

Why have the various character pages been redirected to this page and the list page of characters. Surely if there is enough info about a character then they should have their own article.--NeilEvans 23:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Because virtually all of the articles on the characters contained only an infobox and a mention of the actor who played the character. I've left a more detailed explanation at Talk:Home and Away. Extraordinary Machine 01:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better off to make each current character a main page, rather than making a large article here? BlackbeltMage 15:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus, colleen and sally, you're kidding right? A marriage, wtf? That is really wrong. 124.148.2.179 (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Update

I've briefly updated a couple of the character's summaries, basically stating their current relationship status. So are the main characters going to get their own page one day? I think it would be a good idea, esp. for overseas viewers interested in spoilers about one certain character, and not any other storylines. Also, teenage Aussies would also be interested in reading about their fav. character in a clear, easy-to-read set up (with pictures) which isn't available with so many articles here. Megan102 02:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

More info

I think that each character should have to have their role within the Soap put on this article. What I mean is a soap always has set convention which need to be fulfilled so the audience will recognise the program for being a soap. So for each character what about putting in, for example, Troublesome oldie or Jack-the-Lad. Thanks Kaeso Dio (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

pages removed

Why have the pages regarding Morag Bellingham, Leah Patterson-Baker and Ric Dalby been removed ( Silverhorse (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC) )

Bad state

This page is in a pretty bad state.. I did a (minor!) cleanup here but there is so so much more to do, so can people start having a look in? Typos, wikify, etc.. Cheers :) Deon555 (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, will do some work on it too. There are also rumours that should be removed altogether. JamminBen (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Messy and Un-Organised

This page is really untidy. Names are all over the place and things don't make sense. The Longest character bit should be done away with forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.115.121 (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm making (some) amends now. I agree with your suggestion that the tenure part should only be restricted to the years, and not their length status (that'd just cause pointless minor edits to be made to the article); however, I will put a cleanup tag on it just the same> --JB Adder | Talk 12:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

This page needs deleting. Each character should have their own page. The information on the page is old and not detailed. The clean up tag has been on for ages but nothing has changed. Most characters have their own page anyway. I'm recommending this page for deletion. DARL4 (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to take it to AfD. We have other lists where each entry has an article (and sometimes the requirement is that each one must have an article!) so I am against deletion. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What the hell's happened to this page?! I did a thorough clean-up back in January, I come back and it's virtually blank with no information on the characters whatsoever! Which would be fine if they all had their own pages but most of those end up being deleted or blanked as well! Someone really needs to make a decision, I thought the whole point of this page was to replace the individual character pages but instead all the information about the characters, especially ones that have left the show, has just gone! Skteosk (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean up operation

I have tried to make this page better by adding breif summaries below the characters. I don't think just copying the text of the original character pages and pasting it here is a good idea. The summaries need to stay breif. Although before I didn't see the point in this page, it is now more important as quite a few of the pages concerning the home and away characters have been deleted. Maybe it would be a better idea to delete all of the indivual character pages and develop this page more. Coronation Street Fan (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot/character summaries

I have removed the "plot summaries" from this list as they were full of original research, point of view, crystal balling (not to mention programme SPOILERS which, on a personal level, has really annoyed me) and not a skerrick has been verified with a reliable source.  florrie  02:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• For information on how a List page should be used, please see Wikipedia:Lists.  florrie  03:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains spoilers. And MOS:TV does say that plot summaries don't necessarily need to be sourced. AnemoneProjectors 13:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Romances"

What exactly constitutes a "romance"? I'd expect it to mean two characters were in a relationship but it seems to include characters who went on one date, who had a one night stand, who randomly kissed once, who fancied each other but never did anything about it...I've taken out some of the most ridiculous ones but there are tons more I'd lose. Frankly the whole category is highly subjective. Skteosk (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Tables

Traditionally current character lists see the characters and actors placed in tables. Arrivals and departures are usually referenced (for an example see EastEnders). Infoboxes are for character articles. What does everyone think about moving the info into tables that can be easily managed? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 13:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a good idea to add a table to the top, linking each one to a section of this article - unless of course there are articles for the characters. But as it is, there is no information in this article other than character names, actors and dates. So as it is I would just change it to tables, unless some storyline information is going to be added. AnemoneProjectors 13:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I did try and add some storyline details at the beginning of the year but someone removed it on the bizarre basis that you can find it on the official site. Skteosk (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the characters have articles, but I believe a lot were deleted via PRODs and at AfD. I don't think any info is going to be added, otherwise it would have been done. I think I'll be WP:BOLD and convert the info to tables. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I note that there used to be similar tables in the main article and that they were removed recently. So, I've pretty much restored them and placed them in their own article. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've added plot details, changing the format to more in line with List of past Home and Away characters. Hopefully it won't all be deleted within a few hours and, at the other end of the scale, hopefully it won't fall victim to unnecessary edits, recentism and excessive spoilers. Might be making a rod for my own back here but I'll try and keep an eye on it and stop it getting out of hand.

Sorry about the tables but I think they'd be better off being moved back to the main series page. If you're going to have a list of current characters I think it should actually tell you who they are. Skteosk (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in support of the tables. It's no help to readers digging through masses of information, non of which is sourced. A simple table like the one implemented is fine. It's a list anyway!RAIN the ONE (Talk) 14:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a list. If someone wants to come on here and find out about a character, they can. A simple table tells you nothing except the name of the character, the actor that plays them and the dates they appeared. Most of which isn't linked to any article. All the information on here can be found in at least one, possibly two other places in Wikipedia. If this article is going to remain, it should contain new information. Skteosk (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

How many pages of info do you want. The pages Recurring characters of Home and Away and List of Home and Away characters need to be merged anyway.... List of past Home and Away characters, another page full of crap and uncourced fan info. This is not Home and Awaypedia, it's Wikipedia. Actually, I think List of past Home and Away characters should be deleted, made into a list... once Recurring characters of Home and Away and List of Home and Away characters are merged, they can be a list of past characters (past regular and recurring) and current characters removed... It would look like this: List of past Coronation Street characters, List of past Hollyoaks characters or this List of past Neighbours characters. The page we are on about atm, should be a table page of current and future characters. All this character info should go into the articles, if their article doesn't exist, tough, because it's up to fans to make the article if they want... if they cannot and the character is not notable, then why have info on a non notable character on WP? An encylopedia is for interesting, notable things. The way the fiction in these articles is explained anyway is unnaceptable.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 18:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Before anymore reverts happen and this develops into an edit war, lets discuss what's going on. This list (yes, it is a list) is in line with most of the other soap opera current cast lists. The tables were available in the main article and then removed, so this format has existed before. I've simply restored them and moved them to this article (tables like this should not be in the main article anyway). They serve the same purpose as the infoboxes that were here, only instead of an individual section, everything is in one place. There is no point having an individual section for a character who has an article. Now I count 12 characters in the list that don't have articles. I'm guessing some have been deleted or re-directed, so we may have to leave those without links for now. For the newer characters, maybe someone could create a List of Home and Away characters (2010) article (example). Ideally before creating an independent article about a character, they should be part of an article like that. When the character has been on-screen for around 6 months and the section has enough information and sources, an article for the character can be created. As for all those lists, some are going to need to be merged. You need three at the most; current, past and recurring characters. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 19:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I stick to my stance. I've said it in other places, I've said it in here. All the lists have a valid reason for existing. All the information on here exists on List of Home and Away characters (apart from the odd detail about minor and guest characters which frankly doesn't belong her either). Four lists set out as I suggested would make sense. Two identical lists doesn't. If you want to retitle this page List of Home and Away characters (2010) in order to show consesus, that's fine. If characters don't have articles, that's not "tough", that's a sign that the information should be on this page. People include sources, other people delete them. The general consensus seems to be that most Home and Away characters aren't notable enough for their own page, yet no-one wants to include details about them on the list pages. I maintain that the show needs a page along the lines of Characters of Casualty, which provides details of the cast without clogging up Wikipedia with endless pages on minor characters which get speedily deleted and which are far more likely to turn this into Home and Awaypedia than including one useful article. Skteosk (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well that's fine but with Casulty, they have a list page also, but no articles because they were all merged becasue it was talked about and everyone thought it was best. Someone needs to edit these articles to make them stand alone, Sally, Alf, Charlie, Irene, Colleen and so on have all had notable storylines... It's hardly clogging up when it's done properly. Martha MacKenzie is an article me and June are working on it, it's the best H&A article there is already from a few hours of work. It's about driving Wikipedia foward, making everything notable.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 23:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Chipping in despite not knowing a thing about H&A - I think there's room for both formats to co-exist. The list page is best suited to table format (although could probably stand to be moved to a different name - 'current' being subject to frequent change.) Character summaries would be fine in a 'Characters of...' type format, possibly broken up into 5 or 10 year periods to keep the article size down. The summaries would, of course, need to be sourced where appropriate and written in a suitably encyclopaedic tone - skimming the existing summaries, statements like 'Alf is practically Summer Bay royalty' are problematic because of POV issues. Characters of Smallville is the best example I'm aware of - characters without articles are sufficiently detailed, while characters that have individual articles are covered concisely in summary style. Frickative 23:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A list article can include prose. Just wanted to say that. Example: List of Desperate Housewives characters. It's a list of characters where each character's entry describes that character. I'm wondering if, for now, just one article for H&A characters could be used. Set it out like the list of past characters but include all the characters - and any that have articles just link to the article. Not sure articles like List of EastEnders characters (2010) are necessary here, but essentially this is what my proposal is, only with All years. It could still contain the table as well - at the top, similar to List of Primeval characters (only better). AnemoneProjectors 00:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually... I do like List of Home and Away characters as it is now. Perhaps, if you want to include a current cast list and cast changes, add to the top of that something like I've done in User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders cast members. As H&A started in 1988 perhaps then instead of creating pages for each year, do it in blocks of say 5 or 10 years, or based on decades, and add character bios there. Then do away with the lists of recurring and past characters. AnemoneProjectors 00:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking this one step further, perhaps if this was done, the content from List of Home and Away characters (combined with the actor/character/duration info from the current, recurring and past lists) could all be merged to List of Home and Away cast members? That would avoid the redundancy of having separate character articles presenting the same information in different formats (table and prose). Frickative 01:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise that article existed. Yes I agree. AnemoneProjectors 02:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither did I, SEVEN character lists now!!! Something has to be done. I like your idea, AP, I support your suggestion. Merging and improving is the way foward. I like that EE page with the additional table at the top. Seriously, To many pages, it's a good thing editors have noticed what is going on here at last. It really is the neglected corner of the WP:soap operas projects...RAIN the ONE (Talk) 16:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, trying again...I think the information needs to exist somewhere. If not here, then somewhere else. At the moment, you've got two articles, List of Home and Away characters and List of current Home and Away characters, which basically perform the same function. Except List of Home and Away characters has more information, is more accurate, is better constructed and doesn't make arbitrary judgements about character's status (two supporting characters who appear as much as anyone else are listed as "recurring", even though a child actor who disappears for months on end and a glorified guest character are lumped in with the big boys). Now, if someone's in the process of creating decent articles for all the characters, not just a smattering of the longer-serving ones, two of whom have left the show, that's fine. But they're not. So the details on the other characters need to be placed someonewhere else, as they have with Casualty. And this page and the past character page seem to me the logical place to put them, rather than turning them into truncated versions of the main list. If you look over the article's history, especially from last year, there is a strong tradition of including plot details. It got out of hand a bit so it was stopped but as I said, I will do my best to keep an eye on this and stop it happening again. Someone once regretted the fact that character articles were being deleted and there was nowhere to merge them to because of the table format used on the list articles. I'm trying to give them somewhere. So, once again, I suggest List of Home and Away characters is kept in the table format, the past characters list is kept in the prose format and this article is once again reverted to the character profile format. List of Home and Away cast members is rather redundant and should possibly be redirected to List of Home and Away characters. Recurring characters of Home and Away is a bit of an odd list which mainly serves as somewhere to list short-term guests and minor characters without clogging up the main list with them. Skteosk (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

So basically, you've ignored all suggestions above then, wanting it to stay the same. All editors above making good suggestions of the half way line to suit everyone in this discussion... With the permanent and recurring status, that's defined by what the show calls them. If they are not listed as a character on the official website, it means they are recurring, most cases plot devices. If people want to know about Melody Jones, Ash Nader, or any recurring character's life story they can go to Backtothebay, great fansite. It's obvious when a chaarcter is recurring because they are only going to appear for one month, most of the time durations of chaarcters are readily avaiable on the net, so we can source it where required. About the lists, there should be only a few now. One list for past characters, one for current and future. Like Frickative said, there could then be a list of characters with well sourced information, about them with an out of universe tone. There needs to be some change, these articles will be stuck in the limbo forever or else. If it goes back to being a massive pile of text with no sources, it should be up for deletion because the list you want just doesn't hold a place on WP.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 15:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What would you keep, merge or delete from the number of list below. Remembering characters are mentioned in more than one...

• List of Home and Away children
• List of Home and Away cast members
• List of Home and Away characters
• List of current Home and Away characters
• Recurring characters of Home and Away
• List of past Home and Away characters

RAIN the ONE (Talk) 16:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if that was directed at Skteosk specifically or just a general question, but I would merge the basic information from all of those articles into either List of Home and Away characters or List of Home and Away cast members (preferably the latter), in the format that 'List of Home and Away characters' is currently presented in, tweaked slightly per AP's example. Then create a couple of new articles for the biographies, split up either by decade or alphabetically, rather than 'past' and 'current' which is subject to continuous change. Frickative 16:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It was open yes, I thought it best to discuss them all in one go. Perfect though, your suggestion is probably the best. So keep this page in the same table format but a little more like AP's example, then the merger you suggested imo, would indeed sit best on a page labeled cast members rather than characters. (I have put the H&A children up for deletion btw)RAIN the ONE (Talk) 16:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm starting to feel as though people are using this as an excuse to insult me and say that my opinions aren't valid because I don't agree with them. I'm trying here, okay, people? I'm not asking you to agree with me but I'm trying to come up with something workable. I suggested merging/redirecting the near identical List of Home and Away characters and List of Home and Away cast members and I was accused of wanting to keep everything the same. I re-edit a page in a way that has people hammering the revert button and I get accused of wanting to keep everything the same. Delete List of Home and Away children, it's fairly pointless. If not here, if not now, then when? Sorry, I'm babbling. You could, frankly, merge them all into one list of characters, there's an awful lot of duplication of information. Do people not want Wikipedia to include information on the characters? Do they think that simply providing a list of names will tell anyone everything? You've already made a mess of the template by removing all the sections it directs to. What exactly are you all suggesting? Deleting all the lists? I'm lost here, I try and take part in the discussion and I get accused of ignoring everyone else just because I suggest something different. Skteosk (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Trying to calm down and make some sensible suggestions, it's a hot night here and I should be in bed...Well, you could delete them all. I assume no-one wants to do that. You could merge all of them, bar the children, into one article and end up with something very long. You could delete the recurring and merge all the others, although people would probably soon start adding them to that article. You could merge characters and cast and keep past, recurring and current separate, as I suggested earlier. You could keep recurring separate and merge all the others. You could delete past, recurring and current and merge characters and cast, which is much the same as another suggestion. Originally this dispute was meant to be about whether to keep this article as a table or whether to include character profiles but apparently no-one's interested in talking about that anymore. Skteosk (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

BUT...If this really has turned into a discussion about which of those lists to keep and which to delete, in my opinion List of Home and Away characters is the important one, as AP suggested above. I disagree with the suggestion of getting rid of that and splitting the list into past and current characters. I think if you are going to go down that route, you should get rid of those lists and keep the combined one, it's well-constructed, it's accurate and it tells you everything you need to know. Skteosk (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, final thought, then I'll let someone else speak. Get rid of children. Get rid of cast members. If you're going to keep past the way it is and have current in the same format, whether it's the edit I made or one someone else does, keep them as well. If they're just going to be tables, get rid of them as well because it'll just be duplication. The only ones you need to keep are main and recurring. Skteosk (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the protection's been taken off. Do we have any sort of consesus about whether to keep it as a table or include character profiles? Skteosk (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well.. Four editors have favoured the tables for now. No it's best to keep it like it is. I'm not sure anyone else will have an opinion, I advertised this disucssion on Wikiproject Soap Operas, days ago, so they've had time.. .RAIN the ONE (Talk) 13:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we want both, just to reorganise the existing pages. AnemoneProjectors 13:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Shall I start making the changes then? Ones from earlier in the discussion, which Frick, you and I agreed on?RAIN the ONE (Talk) 14:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah go for it. AnemoneProjectors 15:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There was talk of having both a list article and a profiles article at one point, as per the Casualty example I gave, I don't know if people would object to me taking what I wrote and using it to start another article without the apparently inflammatory "list" word in the title. I really can't see everyone having their own character page, the articles tend to get deleted pretty quickly on the grounds that they aren't notable outside the show. Skteosk (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Skteosk, they won't get deleted if you provide references for them. Explain the fiction clear and discuss from a real world perspective.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 00:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I take it that's a "No" then. I guess I could use the "How is this different from a hundred other articles" argument but that's not going to wash, is it? Seriously, you've got the link to the official site which gives brief character profiles, for something as basic and all-encompassing as that I'm not sure what else you'd need. I don't think dropping in random quotes from actors or producers really adds anything and would be more suited to a specific character article anyway. Maybe I can't see the wood for the trees but I thought what I wrote was clear enough. For a simple list of who's who, you don't really need anything more complex. That's my opinion, anyway. Skteosk (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If all you want to use in the profiles is information from the official website, then why not just add that in as an external link on the list article? No one here has opposed the creation of a profile article, so long as it conforms to Wikipedia guidelines for writing about fiction. Frickative 11:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's already there, which is kind of my point. People throw around terms like "unsourced" without bothering to check the references and see how much is actually there. How exactly do you "source" information about soap opera characters, anyway? Include a long list of the episodes where a fact is established? (People have tried, they still get deleted.) I mean, I really don't see what was so bad about what I wrote, it just told you what you need to know, it didn't pretend it was real. Do you want me to mention when things were established a bit more? Maybe it won't be perfect but is that a reason for not trying? In fact, look at the List of Desperate Housewives characters that someone quoted above. That does pretty much exactly what I tried to do and, in my opinion, isn't anywhere near as well presented, selective or easy to read. Yet apparently that's okay whereas what I do gets deleted/ reverted instantly. Skteosk (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the Desperate housewives list is one clump of mess, the list you wrote did happen to look better. Someone just created Indigo Walker, referenced, explained a little clearer... That's how it's done... Martha MacKenzie, look what we did there, it's there all the information, around the web, magazines and video content...you just got to find it. It's not a strong requirement that you source plot detail... just for claims made, for an article to be factual, you have to discuss how it's notable, including refs. The point I'm making is, all the information you want can be placed on individual pages. Just saying that because earlier in the discussion, one of your reasons for choosing a list was because you wanted to include the character info for people to read, but you couldn't do it on seperate articles because they kept getting deleted.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 17:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If I thought there was a chance of everyone getting a decent, safe character page in the near future, I'd let that happen. I looked at the articles you mentioned and... felt slightly humble because there's no way I'd be able to write something that good. I do suggest however, that no-one would be able to write an article that good for the older characters because the information just isn't there, the show's older than the internet, you're not going to find an interview about how anyone decided to make Irene a regular in 1993 or how Lynne McGranger felt about it because they were all printed in magazines that got dumped at the local tip. I am listening to what you're saying, but I'm tempted, even if it's just a placeholder until someone writes some better articles, to start something up anyway, making an attempt to explain the fiction better and do a proper cross-reference to relevant pages. Worst case scenario, another two hours of my life wasted. Skteosk (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Well...it's up there now and it's out there. And I'm being accused again of not going with what was agreed. I guess you can propose the article for deletion and/or blank it. Constructive feedback and editing is more than welcome. I'm sorry if anyone thinks I've gone behind their back, again, and done my own thing. Skteosk (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Skteosk - I think the main problem is not that you've created the article, because we all agreed that having biographies would be appropriate (with a bit of editing so they're not totally in-universe :)) but that 'current' isn't really a good descriptor for an article title, because what's 'current' is subject to change on a regular basis. It would be better to separate articles based on decades, or by surnames A-M & N-Z or something similar - something less likely to be constantly changing. Frickative 23:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with Frickative. Just how many character profiles will there be? AnemoneProjectors 23:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the idea I was working on, which is why I introduced the profiles to this page in the first place, was that there's already a List of past Home and Away characters in the same format so when a character ceases to be "current" they'd be transferred there (unless they're only a short-term character, in which case I don't think we'd need to keep the details). But I'm open to alternatives. Skteosk (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That's why we suggested character profiles either by alphabet or decade, as well as a full cast list with a section for current cast at the top (though if there aren't that many, the "current" section may not even be necessary. AnemoneProjectors 23:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You just basically created the page elsewhere.. .yet another list. .. No refs on the page either.. using the official website.. . Penn is a main character too, credits are wrong a lot of the time. ..RAIN the ONE (Talk) 01:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's basically it. And I agree we didn't need another list but... Don't agree about Penn, credits are never wrong. (Well, hardly ever.) In my opinion, they're the primary source and from the storyline it's hard to imagine him being anything other than a plot device who'll be gone in a few months. If he gets upgraded to main cast status, he can already be moved to that section. A quick look over the full cast list shows there's been 141 main characters, not including him. Splitting them by decades might work, possibly three alphabetical lists (A-H, I-P, Q-Z?), but in both cases there might be debate about who goes where. Skteosk (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If there's any conflict about where a character should be listed (eg. if it's structured alphabetically and some characters have had different last names due to marriage etc) then the best bet is to list them under their common name, with redirects to there from any other names. I can't think of an instance where it would be debatable about what decade to list a character under, but then I haven't watched Home and Away since I was a kid, so feel free to toss out some examples :)

I actually agree that credits are usually the most reliable source of a character's status, unless there's something that directly contradicts it, eg the actor stating in an interview that they have a three year contract. This source says that the character is a guest, but I don't know how dated it is. Frickative 10:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A source saying he is a guest. Perfect, that's backed that one up. I prefer a good sourceRAIN the ONE (Talk) 13:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help :) I'm giving Current characters of Home and Away a bit of a going over for formatting, and adding in bits and pieces of real-world content where I can - mostly cribbed from existing articles, award noms and stuff - with a bit of extra referencing. Hopefully it should provide a jumping off point for further expansion. Out of interest, is there justification for {{Home and Away}} being bright orange? It's a bit distracting, and possibly "arbitrarily decorative". Frickative 14:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Big thanks for those, Frickative, you've really helped improve the article. I agree with your comment about how to sort characters alphabetically, there may be some debate about which is the "common name" but essentially if all reasonable alternatives are covered it should be okay. As for controversy about decades, I think the only real problems are Colleen and Martha, both of whom technically made their debut in the 1980s but had lengthy gaps of eight and seventeen years respectively before becoming main characters in the late 1990s and 2000s (with Martha being recast along the way). Skteosk (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Just go from first appearance. TBH, Coleen was part of SL's because of Lance... Martha was in it for two years the first go around. Go from character inception, rather than actor.. Skteosk, people are editing and putting Penn into main cast again, would it be best to put the ref found next to his name in recurring. Maybe we should try and get protection on the page agaisnt IP edits, only if the vandalism continues, becoming more frequent though. Frick, good job of including real world content and sources! =) That's all I wanted from the outset really. RAIN the ONE (Talk) 02:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Further more just noticed a few questions. Frickative: I think the orange is just purely decorative, it would look better just joining with all the other soap opera articles colour scheme of pale blue, simple, not distracting and in use everywhere.. Skteosk: About Irene and what the actress said, can easily be found again using a book search on google, big name publications are sometimes archived there as I've found when writing about Neighbours' 1980's characters... just about looking around a little and getting the source, I don't mind looking into that at some point, Neighbours, Hollyoaks have my full attention atm though lol.. Overall though, I have come around to the idea of the seperate page aslong as the sources keep coming in, maybe I'm being lazy today, but there are quite a lot of refs for Home and Away on Aussie websites... I'll work on Xavier's article soon too, I got some casting info and characterisation on him, he auditioned for 5 other characters in H&A before this...RAIN the ONE (Talk) 02:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It was Frick that came up with the source originally so credit there but I've added the reference to Penn. I'll accept your argument regards Colleen, she was a fully developed character in the 1980s even if she didn't appear much, but I have a hard time thinking of Martha as anything over than a 2000s character even if she did appear briefly as a baby in 1988. She was more of a concept that a character, a necessity to wrap up a pregnancy storyline whose part, aside from some brief drama when she was kidnapped by Brett, mainly consisted of "Get born, get adopted, get forgotten about." She only appeared for three weeks, I've no idea where this two years myth came from, I suspect someone didn't realise she was given up for adoption and assumed she left with Roo. I think that if she is included under 1980s there'd need to be a redirect from the 2000s page since people would be most likely to look for her there (or possibly vice versa). Skteosk (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Full protected for three days

If you reach a consensus, come nudge me and I'll unprotect this page. Further, please read WP:3RR- I'm not in the mood to hand out blocks, but the edit warring has to stop. (And, per tradition, I have protected the wrong version, I'm sure.) Courcelles (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say so, others would possibly disagree. You've protected the old version that people kept reverting it to despite it containing mistakes and misleading information, rather than the version that retained all that information, with corrections, and built on it. Skteosk (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

See m:The Wrong Version- it's a recurring joke, not the sysop expressing any preference for the either version- we protect pages as we happen to find them (obvious vandalism excepted), not adjudicate as to whose version is better. Courcelles (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not misleading really, we just took the info straight from the H&A website, the accurate place. It's a good thing that Courcelles has done, it's giving us a change to discuss and decide what's best now. Moving foward. =) RAIN the ONE (Talk) 16:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay...Well, for a start the H&A website (the Australian one) lists three departed characters as "current", which casts doubt as to its accuracy. It also seems to contain a glitch whereby you can't view the second page of the character list. But here are the things I consider misleading or inaccurate:

• Highlighting the main problem with the table, that despite the page being about "current characters" the table seems to be a list of "current actors": the roles of Irene, VJ and Dexter have all been recast at least once. Irene and VJ have all the character's appearances listed, even though the listed actors, Lynne McGranger and Felix Dean, didn't take on the roles until 1993 and 2007 respectively. Conversely, Dexter is listed as first appearing in 2010, even though he appeared in 2009 played by a different actor.
• Despite the "current" heading, Tony and Rachel's dates imply they have already left, which is crystal balling at best and somewhat redundant given the inclusion of the "cast changes" section. That section gives their departure as "Late 2010", which depends on your definition of "late", obviously it will be in the second half of the year but current reports suggest it will be July or August. The five-month-old article referenced simply refers to it as "forthcoming".
• VJ is included on the list of regulars. He isn't listed on the UK website and I suspect he isn't on the Australian website (if he was he'd be on the elusive second page). He is listed as "Guest cast" on the closing credits and so, if Elijah and John are considered "Recurring", he should be as well. And, thinking about it, he was born in the last episode of 2001, so the dates are probably wrong for the character as well as the actor.
• Liam's listing claims he appeared on the show in 2008. He didn't appear until 2009.
• I was surprised to see that Penn is indeed listed on both the UK and Australian official sites. I was going by the actual show, which I would deem more accurate, and which lists him as "Guest cast" in the credits, so in my mind that makes him recurring, however much publicity is being given to his arrival. Conversely, Bianca isn't listed on either official site (perhaps not surprisingly in the case of the UK since she hasn't made her debut yet) but is listed as main cast on the closing credits, so in my opinion placing her as a regular would be accurate, even though the "accurate" website suggests otherwise.Skteosk (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh - and looking at it again the order is completely FUBAR. Interestingly, someone tried to change it to the current billing order of the show, which is in order of how long characters have been there, only for it to be reverted. That, much more sensible, order goes Alf, Irene, Colleen, Leah, Tony, Rachel, Miles, Nicole, Charlie, Ruby, Xavier, Angelo (bit of an odd one that since he was only gone a few months), Liam, Romeo, Gina, Marilyn, April, Sid, Indi, Dex, Bianca. The article seems to be trying to put them in order of their first appearance, even if it was only for one episode played by a different actor and they weren't seen again for fifteen years. On that principle, it's okay down to Xavier, if you overlook VJ being listed by the character rather than the actor and the fact he's there at all, but after that it's completely messed up. By that scale, the order should go Gina, Liam, Sid, Indigo, Dexter (if you're going by the character - those three made their debut together incidentally), Romeo, Penn (if you're going to include him), April, Dexter (if you're going by the actor), Bianca. Skteosk (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Changing the colour of the infobox-templates..?

I've started a discussion here is the Link. ..RAIN the ONE (Talk) 23:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong sections for characters

Morag Bellingham, John Palmer and Will Smith are not regular characters. They are recurring or guest characters. If you watch the credits for Home and Away it clearly says this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrypotter1994 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

Celia isn't returning to H&A, so why is she in returning characters? she needs removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.55.97 (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Policy?

The article currently has a note on it saying that Gina Palmer has to be listed under her article name rather than her current name, which seems to go against the purpose of the article. Is this an official Wikipedia policy? Skteosk (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Jett James only recurring in 2017 appearance.

File:Jett James recurring cast, Home and Away June 2017.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrypotter1994 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC+9) (UTC)

Jett was previously a regular cast member, and his whole duration is taken into account. We shouldn't downgrade. - JuneGloom07 Talk 01:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes but his current capacity is in a recurring arrangement meaning he will only be on the show temporarily. Why can't Jett be placed in the recurring/guest cast list and have his duration as 2017 - (2012 - 2015 main) or something similar? Harrypotter1994 (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Missing table

Somebody has removed the box featuring all the recurring and guest characters. Can some one retrieve it please?77.97.55.147 (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Irene's duration

Probably should of opened a discussion sooner, but I thought this would be resolved without an edit war. Irene' duration has been changed to "1991–1992, 1993–" from "1991–" because B.Davis2003 says it reflects the two actresses that have played her. However, Irene has appeared in the show every year since 1991 regardless of who played her (not to mention that there's less than a calender year between appearances). The duration in these lists refers to the character not the actors, hence the title "List of characters". Also, the change to the years doesn't actually reflect it's two different actresses playing the role. It still looks like the character's whole stint and there's nothing to tell the casual reader that it isn't. So, should Irene's duration be "1991–1992, 1993–" or "1991–"? - JuneGloom07 Talk 15:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Raintheone and Conquistador2k6: Just realised that it's unlikely many editors will see this, unless it's on their watchlist. Pinging two editors that regularly edit Home and Away articles, but please invite anyone else you can think of. - JuneGloom07 Talk 18:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Leave it as 1991 to present. Irene returned within the one year mark, new head or no new head. Conquistador2k6 19:20 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Leave it 1991 to present because the character has been ongoing since then without a gap of more than one year. Plus this is a list of current Home and Away characters - not a list focused on actor durations.Rain the 1 20:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Page protection

Hello there. As various anon editors keep adding unsourced exits, particularly Simone Bedford, I have come to request some degree of protection on this page as it keeps happening on a regular basis and it is causing disruption to the page. Would it be possible if someone could look into this please? Thanks WestMidlandsboy2000 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@WestMidlandsboy2000: If you think the page needs protecting, then you need to make a request at WP:RfPP. You can also warn an editor if they're constantly disrupting the page or adding unsourced info with the templates at WP:WARN. – JuneGloom07 Talk 11:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Post AfD

Now that the AfD outcome has resulting in favour of keep let's now discuss what to do with the article. One contributor proposed renaming List of Home and Away characters to List of past Home and Away characters and in turn renaming this to List of Home and Away characters. There will need to be some technical moves done.

It seems to be how it is done everywhere else. Ajf773 (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@AnemoneProjectors: Per the discussion at AfD, would you be able to take care of the moves? Any cleaning up and sourcing can be carried out once that's done. - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

OK I think I did that all correctly! Including talk pages and archives! — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 23:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you AP. User:Ajf773, the moves have been completed. Sourcing of the past characters list is underway. - JuneGloom07 Talk 00:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:TV we don't split characters into current and former so these two articles should really be merged. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed during the AFD which resulted in the list being kept. I am in favour of the past and current list only. We have managed to remove numerous lists related to this topic which has not been easy. As per the MoS, occasional exceptions may apply.Rain the 1 08:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TV was never mentioned at the AfD and while occasional exceptions may apply, you need to be able to justify why there should be an exception. "I don't like it" isn't justification and I can't see any justification for two articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It is not a case of "I don't like it". If there is a consensus for one list then I will support it. Will you please include an excerpt from the MoS addressing why there should be no split between past and present characters.Rain the 1 09:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The relevant section of the MoS is MOS:TVCAST, noting particularly "The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such cast members remain on the list even after their departure from the series." Essentially, we create one cast list in the order that people are credited. There's no reason that a table can't be sortable so that readers can see the list by first name, last name etc but we never break lists into current and former. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. There have always been split lists and they still exist how they were created during the early days of Wikipedia. Ten years ago there were more lists. One lengthy list of recurring Home and Away characters was yesterday deleted via AFD, so there is some progress.Rain the 1 09:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This seems to have been done in an incredible rush with little or no consultation, less than 24 hours after this conversation was started, making a mess of the past character list by failing to differentiate between actors and combining guest stints in the process. And what's with that mostly empty reference column? You're not going to start doing something stupid like removing the majority of names as unreferenced, are you? Skteosk (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion began via the AFD more than 24 hours ago. There has been a pledge made by JuneGlom07 to reference the information, which looking at the edit history is a work in progress. As for date ranges, they refer to character duration because this is a list of characters. We do not list each year as separate. The simple date range is correct because it states that the character appeared during those years.Rain the 1 09:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You have used a deletion discussion that didn't even apply to the page in question to get back door consensus to split up a page so people now have to look at two different lists and then remove even more information from it for no better reason than "that's how we do it". I'm conceding defeat on you removing characters from the list and retitling pages so "List of Home and Away characters" now omits major regulars who were on the show ten years or more and instead lists three month guest characters and pets. You've insisted that a page whose only exclusive content was an excuse for edit wars and crystal balling is vital by removing the information from the page where it belonged and retitling it. I'm making a lot of concessions here because it's been presented as a fait accompli, arranged out of view instead of discussed on the relevant talk pages, but there are limits. If you can find enough references to justify the column, then fair play to you, but I'm worried it's the start of an excuse for mass content renewal and over-reliance on secondary and tertiary sources while ignoring the primary source. Skteosk (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Notable guest characters and pets that appear in Home and Away are fictional characters too. A fait accompli? The idea was suggested in AFD, which is an open forum. You had the opportunity to include your opinion. The list had a big red banner slapped over it for weeks. I was surprised you did not comment there. When the sticks were down a compromise was reached. Now you want stop it? The list does attract IP edit wars but that could be said of any article. It was not crystal balling, reliable sources were added or it was challenged and removed. In addition the simple dates state the character appeared yearly, which is factually correct? So why keep on changing them when the other lists adopted that style years ago.Rain the 1 13:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The banner was on the wrong page though. I noticed there was a deletion proposal for List of current Home and Away characters, and frankly I didn't have a horse in that race: I didn't particularly want to see it go, but I didn't particularly think there was anything notable on it that didn't appear elsewhere either. It never occurred to me that someone might decide that instead of deleting a page that mainly repeated information given elsewhere, they'd instead decide to delete the information from another page to justify its existence. If someone had actually tagged List of Home and Away characters with a banner saying "It has been suggested this page be split into List of Home and Away characters and List of past Home and Away characters" or "It has been suggested this page be moved to List of past Home and Away characters", then I'd have given my opinion of that suggestion. Instead, I got up this morning and found the page was effectively gone and this was in its place. Hence, fait accompli. I accept that it's done and there's no going back now (although judging by the comments above, it seems you've been doing it wrong for years and have just got rid of the one soap opera character list that actually got it right and had all the information in one place), but it feels people are using the AFD as an excuse to sneak in changes they've been trying to get in for years. Take Pippa for instance. "Simplifying" the duration means you've got two actresses and a date range of 1988-1998 and 2000-2009. A reasonable assumption would be that one actress was for one stint and one for the other, not that one was a regular from 1988 to 1990 and the other from 1990 to 1998 and then appeared in maybe 35 episode out of over 2,000 in what's marked as if it's a continuous tenure. I do have a compromise suggestion: If you do want the list to contain a simple duration for character, then I suggest including footnotes clarifying changes of actor or status. It is something that's done on similar lists elsewhere. Skteosk (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm probably going to stir up a hornet's nest here but looking at that deletion discuss: It's a farce. You've got the same two editors making the same arguments they've been making for years and conspiring to destroy a decent page and perpetuate the utter nonsense that has replaced it with the usual argument of "it's what we've done elsewhere". Let me be blunt. The "Cast Changes" section, supposedly the main argument for keeping the nominated page under a different name and splitting the previous List of Home and Away characters page, is completely unencyclopedic. It's nothing more than gossip, which could easily be held off until characters actually appear on screen, rather than taking up space with lengthy lists of actors who someone read somewhere are going to appear at some future point, often spending considerably less time on screen than they spend being listed as "upcoming" here. As for the "Departing Characters" section, what purpose does it serve? It's completely arbitrary. Either it lists an actor for a year or more because they mentioned in an interview when their contract ends and then signed an extension, or a character departs without an official announcement beforehand and the section isn't used for them. User:Ajf773, I don't know how you got conned into allowing the previous, exhaustive List of Home and Away characters page to be replaced with a page that isn't anything of the sort, but you were. Skteosk (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't want to alienate anyone, we've all got to work together on this. You've been keeping Home and Away lists under control for 10 years, I've been looking after the List of Home and Away characters for 12. I've always prided myself on keeping it accurate and up to date and comprehensive. And now it's gone, and this page has taken its slot, and its hard not to feel like something I cared about has been broken in two and I wasn't even given a chance to defend it. I am prepared to work with what we've got, I just think it's a shame that the old list has gone for reasons that I don't really agree with, as the result of a discussion that it wasn't even tagged as part of. Skteosk (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way but I have always been fair and considered your opinion. In those ten years these this list remained as it were. You are referring to myself and JuneGloom07 and we have worked together to improve Home and Away articles.. but destroying a list is not what we have worked towards. There have been multiple AFDs on Wikipedia and the I have noticed that there is less support for soap operas related projects that house too many bulky lists. I think that is why this outcome was favoured, so no one has been "conned". Your idea of footnotes is certainly worth consideration and should be discussed more. As for Pippa, you could think that or you could think "Oh cool, Pippa did continue to appear in Home and Away from 2000 to 2009" - which is factual. If the general reader then would like to know about a bunch of guest appearances, they can read the relevant Pippa article.Rain the 1 07:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I went through the whole gamut of matter-of-fact, angry and depressed last night. I do appreciate the work you both do, you do a lot of sourcing that would be a bit beyond me. I have always argued that it was better to have all the information in one place than have people skipping back and forth trying to get the full picture or have characters being moved back and forth between different list pages, but this is what we're left with so I guess we discuss how we deal with it going forward. Skteosk (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, the AfD outcome was "Keep", not "keep this article, move it to another location after the article there has been moved" so that shouldn't have been done without more consultation. As for being better to have all the information in one place than have people skipping back and forth, in fact that's what MOS:TVCAST requires. All of the characters should be in one article, not two, and I still don't see a reason for there to be two articles. These articles are unusual. Even when there are articles for individual characters, the "List of <Foo> characters" page normally contains a prose description of characters, with a bit less detail for those who have their own articles. It's not normally a table, and never tables in two locations. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Irene Roberts

Irene was played by two actresses in the show. Jacqy Phillips played her in 1991 and 1992 when she was a guest character and Lynne McGranger played her from 1993 onwards when she became a permanent character. Why has Phillips' name been removed from the list?81.99.69.50 (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

An IP editor removed it in this edit [1]. It just needed adding back, which you have done. - JuneGloom07 Talk 00:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Colby Thorne rumored exit

Is it true that Colby Thorne will exit the show later this year as there has been a rumor of him being arrested???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.205.200 (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyone's guess. The show tends to stay tight-lipped about departures, even when half the audience have seen paparazzi photos of the departure scene. Skteosk (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Putting cast members in the wrong categories

Both Luke Jacobz (Angelo Rosetta) and Ditch Davey (Christian Green) are listed as main cast members on this Wikipedia page but in the shows closing credits both are listed as recurring / guest cast so really should be listed in that section of the page.

Harrypotter1994 (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Angelo was a regular during his original stint, so we shouldn't downgrade his status. He will always have been a regular cast member. I believe Christian's inclusion in the regular cast credits was a mistake or premature, as, like you said, he's still being credited with the guest cast. I'd move him back, but make it clear in the edit summary why he's being moved. - JuneGloom07 JuneGloom07 (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks June. I have moved Christian (Ditch Davey) for now back to the guest cast but I'm sure we will see him in the main cast sometime soon. Harrypotter1994 (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Current to Present

Hey! I wanted to ask if it would be possible to change the Classifications from "Current" to "Present"? The MOS Soap character Infobox states that it should be "Past, Present or future" and the USA, UK and New Zealand soaps use "Present", so I thought it would be good to change the Home and Away & Neighbours articles too. I would change the articles, so please don't worry about the work! I just wanted to get your approval first 😊 DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Page Vandalism

The page has been vandalized. Can someone please fix it? 82.16.78.185 (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)