Talk:Neighbours/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Episode 1

Is there an Episode 1 wiki? if so i'd like to know. Azorrez (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Former Broadcasts - Ambiguous Text

The section outlining US broadcasts of Neighbours contradicts itself. It states that Neighbours was not the first Australian soap shown in America, followed by a list of other soaps, suggesting they were shown first. However, if Neighbours was shown locally in New York in 1991, then it certianly was shown before Pacific Drive and Paradise Beach, as those shows weren't even in production yet in 1991. Also, Home and Away is also mentioned, which wasn't shown in the US until 1994 (at least nationwide, I have no informaton as to whether it was aired in local markets.) The writing should be clearer, as shows like Prisoner were shown in the US before Neighbours, many of the others were not. I don't know how to word it better, would anyone else like to take a crack at it? --HillbillyProfane (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Storylines section (2)

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

Seems good to me, but i'm not totally sure whether a documentary counts as reliable, but I'll let someone else answer that Ged UK (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't watched Neighbours regularly since 1988 nor am I a biased fan of the show, but to me the "documentary" commentary seems flippant and jokey and does not carry the tone required of a WP article. When they joke about "interesting" occurences in a cul de sac it is misleading: most of the car accidents, plane crashes, explosions, and fires occured elsewhere. Those big things are hardly the normal type of storyline occurence for the show, and listing them without any mention of romance, domestic squabbles, marriage problems, school problems, interpersonal clashes, comedy fundraisers, kitchen disasters, is misleading. Where did they get their stats from? The opening paragraph of the page itself does give a broad strokes overview of the general type of storyline the show concentrates on. Format (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I was simply quoting what was said in the documentary so you knew what statistics were given in it. Obviously the true lead of the section shouldn't include tongue in cheek cul-de-sac jokes and would be phrased as though summarising 23 years worth of storylines. More statistics would be ideal, but would need further research and a different source. My reasons for suggesting this is because we have a section header in this article which serves exclusively for a link to another article which, to me, looks untidy. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

David Hoflin / Cast lists

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

He's current cast, but is leaving. He should go in both. Though personally I think the coming and going tables aren't much cop anyway. Ged UK (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps merging this into the above table and just calling it 'Cast list' with colour coding for departing, returning and new cast members would be more helpful? Also can we scrap the rather morbid 'Deceased cast members' table? I fail to see the relevance or why anyone should expect to find a persons date of death by reading a soap opera article. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure i'd even bother with the coming and going colourisation, tbh, but i'm not fussy. We don't really need the table in the article at all, considering there's a linkthrough to the full cast article. Totally agree about the dead actors table, it really doesn't add much Ged UK (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole bloody cast section needs to be worked over. It's way too long and it's causing the entire article to be too long. I say have the current cast section stay as it is, along with recurring cast. Perhaps split the coming and going section into new permanent cast section and simple guest stints (such as Janet Andrewartha's return). Deceased cast and notable cast I don't see being required. Perhaps have them removed. Swanny92 (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For a long time I have felt that these cast tables are way too obsessive. The WP article should be a broad strokes descriptive piece based on the entire show and its history and production. Not an up-to-the-minute repository of actor contractural plans before they have screened. Aren't there other fan sites that do this? Really, www.imdb.com is the place where up to the minute cast movements should be recorded. After someone leaves on screen in Australia it can be noted here I guess, if they are notable character already described in the text. Format (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A large problem with the notable cast members list is that, with the exception of names like Kylie Minogue, Jason Donavan, Alan Dale, Guy Peirce and Natalie Imbruglia who have all become a star in their own right, the rest are generally no more famous now than when they starred in Neighbours. The names I've mentioned don't need to be in a table, they could be mentioned in the history in prose. For example 'Neighbours has launched the careers of many famous people including...' ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

We seem to have a concenus on deleting the famous and dearly departed lists and possibly dispersing the information to other parts of the article. We don't however seem to have agreed how best to deal with future and departing cast members. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well for what it's worth, i think we should do away with everything that isn't the current cast list. The rest is just more hassle than it's worth Ged UK (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Sweeney Young, Jesse Rosenfeld, Daniel O'Connor are leaving

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

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

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

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

Reverted. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about Raintheone? It's always confirmed when cast members are coming AND going. Every time it's reported, it gets added to the section with a reliable source. But clearly that anon user doesn't see that and wants to continue and be an idiot and remove those actors. Swanny92 (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was saying. You're right, I'm glad it's been taken note of and done atlast. Thanks. Raintheone (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested merging of tables - example

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

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

Very good. Makes a lot of sense. Format (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks a lot better and way less cluttered. Wouldn't mind integrating the Upcoming list into current and recurring characters, so it defines better what the new actor's role is. In other words, put new permanent cast members in the current table and actors with upcoming guest roles in the recurring section. Could also colour code the tables, to identify who is staying, who is entering the show soon (and not on air yet) and who is leaving but still on air. Just an option to trim down the sections. Swanny92 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just put in Ged UK's version of the Cast section, seeing as there were no objections to it. If so, just discuss. Swanny92 (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

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

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

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

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

Disambig

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

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

Time and going table

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

I agree with the table for broadcast details not being included. It's pretty much a TV guide for Neighbours airing in an overseas country. Why not have one for Australia as well? In regards to the going table, it was combined with the current cast section because it's pretty much repeated information. There's nothing in the going table that can't be in the current cast section instead. Also, the notable cast members and deceased cast members is useless information. The notable cast section was converted to a simple text paragraph, a table isn't required for it. Swanny92 (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Aww... I was quite proud of that UK table! Although I agree it's probably not in keeping with the Wikipedia MOS (can't find any other article with one similar) and it did seem rediculously unbalanced against Australia. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The 'going' table is an utter waste of time, it simply repeats information in the current cast list, and raises the possibility of them becoming out of sync. Ged UK (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The going table is not needed. If it is announced someone is leaving, then the end year of their tenture can be added to their name in the cast list (with a reference). That's more than enough. No extra tables! Format (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

All other soap opera articles have "comings and goings" tables. Why should Neighbours be any different? Kogsquinge (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the fact "comings and goings" is very bad English, just because other articles go by a certain style does not mean this should. If it's been discussed here that we don't need a departing characters table and we've come to a concensus on it, we stick by it. We don't simply overule what everyone's said and do our own thing. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because many other soap opera articles have going tables it is no reason to have them here. Does WP operate on a system of precedents? The going tables could and should be removed from those pages just as they have from here. WP is not a fansite for individual soaps. Format (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Ages ago I suggested moving the cast section to it's own article, though did not move on. The point is, the article isn't exactly perfect. Probably far from perfect, it still needs plenty of information, and it's already going oversized. The Cast section is one section which tends to become long, so having as least info as possible is what is needed. The Going section is simply repeated information, seeing as it's already combined with the Current cast section. I had the Upcoming section split into two sections, and that makes it look shorter as well. In a nutshell, the Going section is not needed! Swanny92 (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just had a look on the WikiProject Television page, and in particular at the guidance (policy?) on writing about characters, and there is nothing in there about 'coming and goings', it specifies: When appropriate, split up into a list of "Main characters", "Recurring characters" and "Special appearances". I haven't gone back through the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television archives to see whether this issue ever came up. I would suggest that we either follow those guidelines as they are, or request advice of project members. Ged UK (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If the project page stated that it should go by Main characters, Recurring Characters and Special appearances, shouldn't that mean that it should change to sorting by character, rather than actor? Perhaps a new section in the Current characters and Recurring characters articles should be created respectively about Upcoming characters. Swanny92 (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with sorting by character, it would allow better grouping by families in some circumstances I guess. Not quite sure I understand what you mean about the new section though. My brain's been on strike most of today! Ged UK (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, by the new section in the Current and recurring character articles I meant just somehow including the Upcoming cast members in those articles. Though the splitting of the Upcoming tables was confusing enough as it was, so maybe it would be best off to leave the table as it is now, that and Imogen Bailey looked very alone on the Upcoming cast members table lol! Swanny92 (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Erin McNaught

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

Please could you check again, so far as I can tell she's still in the list. No one has recently removed her. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the upcoming table is split in two (upcoming permanent, and upcoming recurring). She's still there. Frankly, this just confirms the silliness of the table splitting, but meh Ged UK (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd second that "meh". In this case this obviously caused confusion as things were not where the reader expected to find them. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've recombined the tables, as obviously my idea wasn't as popular as I thought it would be. I've just put Lyn, Sienna and Simone B's character as guest characters by writing "(guest role)" beside their debut/return dates. Hope that helps! Swanny92 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's much better! Ged UK (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

She's only a recurring cast member, simple as that. I'm guessing they went to the trouble to make a character profile page for Sienna on the main website because she arrived onscreen around the same time the website was revamped. Swanny92 (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know this though. Works both ways really doesn't it, need a source to prove either.Raintheone (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Here, on Perfect Blend: Fiona Byrne's column in the Sunday Herald Sun reports that (Erin McNaught) has signed a three-month contract, with the possibility of becoming a full-time cast member. Swanny92 (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to work out which of the newbies are recurring and which are permanent. My guess is that Nicola, Ty and Sienna are all main characters (as they all have profiles on the main site), yet their actors are only guests (as they're listed as guests on the credits), so there's a difference. If that's the case, then if we're sorting the lists by actor rather than character, then Imogen Bailey and Dean Geyer should be moved into the recurring section until they are (either) added to the opening sequence (not forgetting that Dichen Lachman (Katya Kinski) was a guest the whole time on the show, yet she was on the opening sequence, or until they become credited as full time cast members. If we want to do it by recurring character/main character, then we should move Erin McNaught into the current cast members section. I'm also having trouble deciding whether Scott Major and Margot Robbie are recurring or regulars. Thoughts? Swanny92 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Swanny - Recurring characters

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

Sorry, I suppose I've just always seen the table as being "current recurring characters" rather than recurring characters. There's gonna be a time though when they won't be on the show, but when they are known to return then they can be added again. Lucia doesn't have any known upcoming appearances, so why have her on the table? May as well add Summer and Gino back to the table as well, which would be kinda stupid. I was just going by how I thought it worked, that's all. Swanny92 (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WP is not really a fan site keeping up to minute records of contractural arrangements of the Neighbours cast. When someone disappears from the screen in Australia they probably can be removed from current cast list. When a "recurring" character makes their departure, without a credible external reference stating when their return is to be, they can also be deleted. Soap operas have large ever-changing casts, do we really need to list each and every cast movement here? Isn't that what www.imdb.com is for? I thought WP should be a descriptive overview of the entire series. Format (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe then we should consider restricting the entire Cast section to the permanent cast members only? It's been considered before, though I think we were all thinking only of the Departing section, due to the repeated vandalism on that section. Swanny92 (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. If they're not regular cast members, and we don't know if they'll be returning for future guest stints, then there's scarcely any point of keeping the list there. However, that raises the question of what would happen to the "Coming" cast -- would characters who are confirmed for guest appearances such as Lyn be removed? Hardcore gamer 48 (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe move the remaining sections into... say Cast of Neighbours? Or extend the Current cast article to include current recurring characters, and the upcoming section. Besides, the Cast section needs more info I reckon, such as how the contracts work for the actors etc. Did that once, though got reverted as it didn't follow the style of the other soap opera articles (hmm sound familiar?) Swanny92 (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Episode count

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

Ten isn't really that affected by public holidays, as the UK are. Neighbours airs for the full 49 weeks without any permanent disruption. No idea about how far behind Five is. Do they make up for missed episodes by airing a double or something? Swanny92 (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The BBC managed to close the original delay of about 18 months by showing Neighbours 52 weeks of the year. This was up until a few years ago when they reached 11 weeks (55 episodes) and synchronised it there (probably because they weren't allowed to reduce it any further). They did this by stopping Neighbours either at Christmas or during Wimbledon Championships in June/July or even a mixture of both. Easter or other bank holidays never seemed to have an effect on broadcasts of Neighbours. Now Neighbours is on Five anything could happen and it seems it already has. At the end of Thursday's episode Five stated Neighbours will be back on Tuesday, thereby increasing the episode lag by 2 episodes (which is stupid because the biggest cliff-hangers are usually on the Friday episode, which will now be Tuesdays episode for the foreseeable future). Whether they'll somehow close this gap again or reduce it even further will probably remain a mystery until it happens. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Pippa Black's departure

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

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

Please please please read the article that is cited. It states that she is leaving. That is a reliable source. That's why it keeps getting put in. Ged UK (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also confirmed by Inside Soap magazine, in the UK I think. It was typed up on NFans.com here. Need more proof? (Also don't remove my talk page comments again, it's meant to be archived) Swanny92 (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that Pippa has recently signed a new 1 year contract, which wil keep her on the show until December next year. http://www.neighboursfans.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23914 Gillyh (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

57 episodes behind Australia

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

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

Margot Robbie

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

Sienna Cammeniti and Nicola West

I noticed that, as of tonight, they are featured in the opening credits of Neighbours. Should they be listed as main characters? Ace of Jokers (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends if you wanna go by main cast members or main characters. We could spend a while debating this, if go by main cast members they stay in recurring as they are both guest cast members though if you wanna go by character, which seems to be the way those lists work, then put them in current cast members. I'll move them to current cast members for the mean time though. Swanny92 (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this needs to be addressed again, as some people think Nicola and Sienna should go in the recurring list, as the actors are on guest contracts, though the characters are considered main as A) they have a profile for themselves on N.com, and PerfectBlend considers them as main characters and B) they are on the opening titles. So it needs to be decided, are we going by the actor's status or the character's status? Swanny92 (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think they should be listed as main characters as like you've said they're featured in the opening titles and have their own bios on the official site. Gmanuk2007 (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Fletcher O'Leary (Mickey) Leaving?

I'm wondering this as both of his parents are leaving neighbours as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Me myself & er (talk • contribs) 03:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Neighbours has a long and proud tradition of dumping kids on another family! --Ged (talk) 06:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ben Lawson & Natalie Saleeba's return

If this is true, can we please have a reliable source to confirm it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.17.34 (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not true. Swanny92 (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it's not true?? For all you know, it could be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.17.34 (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the information would have been released by a reliable source already if they were returning, and besides Ben Lawson is in the US now starring in a sitcom pilot, so I doubt he could be in two countries at once. Swanny92 (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Perfectblend.com mention that he's rumoured to be starring in a US pilot, so nothing has been officially confirmed yet. http://perfectblend.net/news/ So, currently it's just a rumour. Gillyh (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well still doesn't make me want to believe that they are returning to Neighbours Swanny92 (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Split cast table

How would people feel about re-merging the current cast table? I know at the time it was a good idea though since then the cast has gotten a big shorter and now it just looks wonky and out of place, re-merging them seems to make the columns look like a normal size again and the list doesn't look really long and dragged out like it did last time. Thoughts? Swanny92 (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Where's the upcoming cast list gone?Gillyh (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I think. I also would like to bring back the leaving cast list and deceased cast list for clarity and information.

Can we please get an answer for the above please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.232.110 (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Fake Spoilers

It has come to my attention that some people who look at this page post fake spoilers/storylines on here. I know of one recently that has since been taken down. It was about a lesbian storyline concerning Margot Robbie (Donna Freedman). I know of other storylines that have been posted on here that have been untrue. Now I don't know who the culprits are but I am asking it to STOP! I don't know what you get out of posting fake spoilers? Nobody thinks you're clever or funny. Everyone on the Official Neighbours Website thinks that it's immature and stupid. If you're doing it because you're bored I suggest you take up a new hobby and get a life seriously. If I ever see another fake Neighbours spoiler on this page again there will be consequences.

                              From Kim (A Representative Of The Official Neighbours Promotion Team)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.11.160 (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC) 

Hello,

As a member of the offical Neighbours forums, I think i speak for all of us when we say we are sick of it too. Recently there have been many 'Spoilers' posted on wikipedia, as some do not contain refrences to where they were found, they are often removed because they are unreliable. Now as for the culprits, we are able to find out who they are and reverse the edits. As for punishments, please leave that to the experienced users, they will be able to follow guidelines and deal with the appropriate punishments if needed. I have sent a Message to the Head Moderator of the Neighbours forums, suggesting awareness be rasied about the seriousness of false information being put onto wikipedia. Thank you Neighbours564eva (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable former cast memberss

There seems to be a little edit war going on, regarding Anne Charleston (Madge) and Ian Smith (Harold). Could we have some discussion as to the merits ? Both were central characters for quite some time, so it seems logical to include them in the "notable" list. RJ4 (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Kelly Katsis

OK, there have been a couple of rumours posted here recently that Kelly Katsis will be returning to Neighbours. I do some review work for Perfect Blend and I know that they had it confirmed back in April from their Neighbours source that there are no current plans to bring her back. I have not heard of any rumours since then to state otherwise, indeed I have just googled this just now before sending a message to the persons concerned, and cannot find that anything has changed.

Just a wee reminder to everyone, please do not post rumours like this unless they can be backed up by a referenced source. Thanks. --5 albert square (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I should probably add that I do actually have a referenced source to back up what I've said, but for some reason it's not displaying properly when I try and add it on this talk page, hence why I couldn't add it. However if anyone needs to see the referenced source all they need to do is ask me for the link, or even google Perfect Blend and then go into spoilers and then rumours and you will find it under the 23rd April 2009. As the character does not have her own page (I couldn't even find her listed as a minor character when I searched for Kelly Katsis), I have also added this referenced link to the Toadfish Rebecchi page as there is a section on there about her. --5 albert square (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sock Puppets

Hi everyone, just to let everyone know that I've created a log where we can keep track of sock puppets affecting Neighbours Wikis. It can be found at [[3]] --5 albert square (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ben Kirk

OK, people keep changing this characters name from Kirk to Fitzgerald.

Ben was going to change his name from Kirk to Fitzgerald. When Steph found out about this, she and Libby fell out. Ben realised this was over his name and said that if changing his name was going to cause arguments then he would not do this. So he has not changed his name and has never been credited as Ben Fitzgerald.

Can we please stop changing the name? --5 albert square (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlocking of article

Hi everyone

OK, I requested two days ago that this article be locked because of excessive vandalism (people posting the same uncited rumours). This should've expired at some point today, but for some reason the article is still locked. I have messaged the admin that locked the article requesting that the lock template be removed. Hopefully this will happen sometime soon :)

--5 albert square (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Now unlocked again. Thank you to whichever admin unlocked it :) --5 albert square (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter Chapman (1999)

His Wiki article has been deleted several times and I for one have no idea who he is, even Google giving me no clue. He should be deleted from the list of Notable Celebrities as he is clearly neither. Agreed? Jubilee♫clipman 19:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in agreement. I just googled him just now and found absolutely nothing other than the fact he appeared as himself in Neighbours! If anyone wishes to keep him in the Notable Celebrities they can always revert my edit and state why they think he should stay. --5 albert square (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Theme tune section pruning?

There appears to be no discussion of this issue. I don't actually see a problem with the present length or content. Any thoughts? Jubilee♫clipman 20:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I suppose the Neighbours article as a whole is rather long. Leave it with me, if I can prune it I will, if I can't or don't think it's necessary I'll remove any templates there :) --5 albert square (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Cast List

OK, been looking at the cast list tonight and it is very long! I'm proposing that we change it so it doesn't take up so much room in the article. What I'm proposing is the following:

We should make it clear that List of Neighbours characters is for past cast members. At the minute it's just plonked in there with no explanation.

Instead of listing the cast list on the page and on the subpage, why not put something like "there are currently x cast members in Neighbours" and then refer people to Current characters of Neighbours.

The same should be done for the recurring cast list. A short introduction to the guest cast of a similar nature and then refer people to Recurring characters of Neighbours.

I'm suggesting that we also make a subpage for the returning/departing cast members, rather than list them all on this page.

Also, the notable cast members need to be looked at. Ideally notable cast members should be people who's character was involved in a notable storyline and whose actor stayed in the soap for quite a few years.

A subpage should also be set up for the guest cast. Maybe an introduction of something like, "over the last x years, Neighbours has had quite a few guest cast members" and then direct people to a subpage for it.

The Bill is one of the articles that I helped to obtain good article status and it's cast section needed a radical overhaul for it. As Neighbours is currently nominated for good article status, I would suggest that anyone wanting to know what a good articles cast list looks like, looks at The Bill's article.

Any comments on my above thoughts would be welcome! --5 albert square (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

For some reason I didn't think I would agree with moving the cast lists, but I agree with all of your points. :) I like the way the Eastenders article has it's characters and cast lists organized (Eastenders is another GA). Can this be another way to consider? - JuneGloom07 (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the EastEnders page is a perfect example too! I can't believe that with all the running around I've had to do on the Lauren Branning page this weekend that I totally forgot that the main EastEnders page is listed as a good article! --5 albert square (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Titles

Hi there, i have added a very long winded: Titles chapter to the wiki artice, please edit, however much you wish, i have also added the photos, which i think really add some detail to a bland page. Abgreen (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The only problems I have with this section are the lack of references (other then the pictures) and the length, which Abgreen brought up themselves. I do like the idea of more photos added to the page to emphasise some of the sections and points made within the article, perhaps some can be added as the revamp goes on? - JuneGloom07 (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The length of these sections is a problem: too long and detailed. I've started trimming the wordiness a little in some sections but this could probably be taken even further. It would probably be possible to find references for major overhauls of title sequences, but I do not believe they are really that neccessary. This is probably something that doesn't really need reference. (If we wrote in that a titles sequence looked terrible, or fans hated it, that would need a reference.) For this type of section, the pictures are very useful to illustrate what is being described. Format (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should trim the section right down to something like, 'The Neighbours title sequence has seen some changes over the years. From the years x and y the sequence was...', and we should leave one of the pictures up that shows some of the changes. Or perhaps Abgreen could upload a picture that shows the first and current sequences, with two other years represented in the middle? - JuneGloom07 (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking a square showing a few of the different titles, not as many as before, just 4 or 5, just to emphaise them, as with the 25th anni, coming up, theres going to another complete revamp with a new website and titles, so that will probally have its own chapter, so if this is kept as 1800-2009 but with 2 pictures for each 10 ish years, so about 6 pictures overall? i don't know if any of this made sence, i just wrote what i felt would make the page more varied.

On another topic, could we add a sound clip playing some of the theme music maybe the first theme and the current? Abgreen (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC) :)

At the moment the titles section needs some work, there are no refs and the section is too long. Perhaps, once this is sorted, as well as the rest of the article, we can think about adding pictures. I agree the article would look good with a couple of images, but we must make sure any that are uploaded are not deleted for copyright reasons.

The theme song section has been moved to a seperate article, so any sound clip should probably be added there. - JuneGloom07 (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Guy Pearce - Films

Mentions are made of several films he appeared in, but not "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert". 'Priscilla' came to my mind first when I perused the cast list, or is this film not as well known outside of Australia as I think? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I've not heard of that film. You could add it but if the film is not well-known outside of Australia you would have to back it up with some form of referenced reliable source such as those supported at WP:RS --5 albert square (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It was released in 1994, so it's a fair while ago, but was successful in its day.(grossed over 5x budget) See The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. The film stars Hugo Weaving, Guy Pearce and Terence Stamp. Quote from article "The film won an 1995 Oscar for best costume design, and received a Golden Globe nomination for best film." but no cite for this data. It was even referenced in the opening ceremony of the 2000 Olympics! If you know nothing about it I suggest seeing it before looking at the article. It may not be your type of film but it is very funny. 'Cultural differences' may make some of the jokes a bit hard to follow!

"Festival de Cannes: The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert". festival-cannes.com. Retrieved 2009-08-31.

External links

*The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert at IMDb

*The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert at AllMovie

*The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert at Box Office Mojo

*The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert at Rotten Tomatoes

*The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert on australianscreen online

These are all from the Priscilla article. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

When I composed the list of notable cast members I wasn't planning on including everything the actors have been in since leaving Neighbours. I just selected some of their best known work to save space. If you would like Priscilla to be included in the list of films Guy has appeared in, you can add it to the main list of notable cast members on the Current cast of Neighbours page. - JuneGloom07 (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't feasible (or, strictly speaking, relevant) for this page to list all the roles its former actors took after leaving the series. It has been normal and common for certain former Australian soap actors to go on to long careers after starting in Australian soaps, just look at Tristan Rogers. With a 25 year run that has included Kylie Minogue, Jason Donovan, Guy Pearce, Russell Crowe, Anne Charleston, it would really bloat the article to list all their later work here. Format (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

International broadcasts

A while ago I changed this sentence: "Neighbours is broadcast in Belgium on the VRT channel, Eén at 5:30p.m from Monday to Saturday. The show has been broadcast in Belgium since 1988 and is the longest running show on Belgian TV after the news and the weather forecast. Belgium are nearly 3 years behind Australian broadcasts." Someone reversed it because I had no source. So there are two problems. First, about the longest running show, besides the two mentioned, also Panorama is longer running then Neighbours. Here's proof [4] (in Dutch) that the program was already there at least from 1980. So that bit of longest running program should better be removed. Second problem is the claim that it is running 3 years behind Australia. Because it's broadcast in Belgium 6 times a week without any break the gap has reduced to 300 episodes, here's a guide [5] for Monday 25 januari 2010, which shows episode 5538, only 307 episodes behind, about 1.5 year. So is that enough source and can someone change it ? Thanks Ziyalistix (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• OK, per WP:V and the Good Article Criteria, a source is needed for all of the information and it should explicitly say 3 years, 300 episodes or whatever. I'd recommend that the sentence be reduced to "is broadcast in Belgium on VRT six times a week" unless somebody can find a proper source one way or the other and not synthesis of sources which do not specifically corroborate the information. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 22:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor to reduce the sentence, better less information than false information, thanks Ziyalistix (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Could've sworn I already posted this. Anyway, just to say it's done and thanks for the info and advice :) --5 albert square (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Notable Cast Members

OK, thought I would start a discussion here to try and prevent the page from descending into an edit war. The way the edits are going at the moment, people will simply end up getting blocked for edit warring.

For some reason, some people don't think that under this section we should have a brief synopsis of some actors careers. I really don't understand why, it does say in the section that we're trying to point out what impact Neighbours has had on the actors careers, how are we supposed to do this if we're not allowed to mention their careers?!

Wikipedia is read world-wide, I'm thinking that if someone who didn't know about Neighbours read the article say the two sentences on Kylie or Jason all they would see is that the pair of them were in Neighbours for a couple of years and left after their characters were married. Without mentioning the careers of Kylie and Jason, they would not know that the success of Neighbours, particularly in the UK, helped them launch their worldwide singing careers. I would imagine that they wouldn't understand how that makes the actor notable.

Thoughts on this please? --5 albert square (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with 5 albert square, the synopsis of their post Neighbours careers should be there. Looking at another GA article, The Bill, it also has a notable cast members section with information about what the actors have gone on to next. There's no point having a notable cast members section if it doesn't explain why they are notable. Delta Goodrem's character may not have had a big impact, but Neighbours helped launch her singing career when she sang on the show. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 12:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Overdetail in character bios

I believe that mentioning other roles that the actors have had is not necessary, since that information should be included only in the actors' articles. If evidence can be provided that other similar articles were GAs or FAs with these sections in them at the time then I'll be happy to concede. - Dudesleeper talk 13:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If that info could have been included in a new section. Think about media coverage of the show, it's gained a reputation for providing a platform for budding musical artists to jump start their careers. There's always been a lot of covarge always going 'originally of Neighbours fame helped to get her known' or with Delta goodrem always sang in the show. Then the use of models Erin and Imogen. Sam Clark now aswell. The problem with them before is that they were mere lists, they did have the potential to explain many of the cast members going onto recieve nice pop careers.Raintheone (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Bill is a GA with a notable cast members section, which mentions the other roles the actors have gone on to and the Friends article mentions what the actors were in previously. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 13:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'm not sure how The Bill article reached Good Article status when every sentence-ending reference appears before the punctuation, but I don't know much about GA criteria. I'll wait for some outside input. - Dudesleeper talk 02:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at The Bill's GA 'to do' list, the reviewer specified that that sentence-ending references appear before the punctuation. I can't remember why that was the case, maybe the GA reviewer can help you though, however I wouldn't have thought that's enough to fail a GA review on! Can we please keep this topic on Neighbours though? --5 albert square (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:FOOT allows references to be put before punctuation. Also, as a GA reviewer, I can tell you that there are only select parts of the MOS GAs must comply with- WP:LEAD and one or two others. Also, for the record, the reviewer in that instance did not make the suggestion. Anyway, that's irrelevant. Let's keep the conversation to Neighbours. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 22:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Neighbours is 25!

dose anyone know if Neighbours is bring back some old cast like they did for the show's 20th in 2005.--Sheep 2009 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

From Susan Bower - "We are planning a 'family' party in a couple of weeks to celebrate turning 25. This will be a celebration involving past and present cast and crew and will be featured on the Neighbours website for you all to see. We also have fantastic stories leading up to the 6000th episode with a cliff-hanger you won’t believe. The consequences go on for ages too. These storylines involve the possible return of a few past favourites and before you get too far down the track with that one, no, it’s not Charlene and Scott".

I don't think anything will be revealed for a while yet. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)