User talk:David the Wavid

Archive

Articles for deletion
Please leave requests for article deletion under this message.

Please could you delete the page entry for Zoë Henry? There is already a page for Zoe Henry and I want to move this to "Zoë Henry" when you've carried out the deletion. Thanks.--Jtomlin1uk 09:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you deleted the wrong one. It was the page with the umlaut over I needed deleted - can it be retrieved?--Jtomlin1uk 10:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please can you delete the page for GM1 as it has been replaced by the one for MM0? Thanks.--Jtomlin1uk 15:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please can you delete the page for Barry Keagan? There is another page for Barry Keegan and IMDb agrees with the latter spelling. Thanks--Jtomlin1uk 13:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please can you delete the vandal-created page for Les Windass? Thank you.--Jtomlin1uk 06:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please could you delete the page for Christable Finch which was created this evening? There is another page for Christabel Finch (the original one being the correct spelling). Thanks in advance.--Karen2310 21:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please can you delete the "vandal" for John Arnley created yesterday? Thanks.--Jtomlin1uk 07:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Another couple of pages created with vandalism today, if you could delete please. Sonny Dhillon and Sexy Shania (just to make you aware that it's the same IP address that created John Arnley yesterday). Thanks. --Karen2310 15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please could you delete the page for Alex Neerson created today? The correct page for Alex Neeson already exists. Thank you. --Karen2310 15:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please could you delete the following pages that were created with wrong grammar or spelling: Many thanks, --Karen2310 10:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Denise Welsh
 * Elsie Tanner - List Of Appearances
 * Builders' yard


 * Those three seem to have gone now, since today's update. --Karen2310 15:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please could you delete the page created for Ramsey Clegg. There is already a page for Ramsay Clegg (which is the correct spelling). Many thanks.--Karen2310 09:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please can you delete the page for Kenneth Jones? The latter was the credit in TV Times whereas on screen he is Ken Jones and a page already exists for him. Thanks.--Jtomlin1uk 20:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A few things
David,
 * 1) I’m starting to collate together repeat data for the programme for those episodes which saw a regular repeat either for Classic Coronation Street or the Omnibus editions. The former is relatively easy as it’s mostly on Corrienet whereas the latter will take a bit of time because of schedule changes. There were special theme nights in 1996 on Granada Plus and they’re proving difficult to find details of (although I have confirmed that they repeated the first 16 episodes of the programme in one block on Christmas Day 1996! Wish I had those on tape for eps 13, 14 and 15!) Are you interested in putting all this on the site – bearing in mind its ‘mission statement’ is to have "the most definitive, accurate, and accessible encyclopedia and reference database for everything related to Coronation Street"? If so, do you mind if I copy what you did on Episode 1 and remove repeat data from the notes and give it its own separate section? Secondly, could you start to add the ITV2 repeat data to the newest episode listings from tv listings on the web and make my task a bit easier – as it is, I’ve got some 20 years worth of data to collect (gulp!) As regards special one-off repeats, I think they’re now all on the site with the exception of a repeat of a 1962 episode shown in tribute to Arthur Lowe on Saturday 17th April 1982 at 10.00pm – trouble is I don’t know which damn episode it was!
 * 2) Also, could you do as you said you’d do and archive the past on your talk page please? Large pages seem to be very slow in ‘reacting’ when typing on them and yours must now be the largest on the site! Its performance is so bad now, compared to other pages, that for some time past I’ve had to type what I want to say in word and then copy and paste onto your talk page when I’m finished.
 * 3) I agree with TellyFan’s excellent suggestion that you change the article of the week name to featured article. I’ve given your request of the other week some thought regarding the new-look of this page. I’m no design specialist (or technically competent) so I’m not sure I can help there but I do think we ought to expand the link to the episodes, characters and cast pages, especially the former and explain quickly what the interested reader is going to see. I also think you ought to link directly to your terrific History of Coronation Street article and its sister article titled Coronation Street. Interested first-timers would find what they’re looking for here. I know you also want to do a lot of work on the categories but some expansion of those (an index up front, if you like) would help. I know I get frustrated on other wikis when I find it hard to find the “chapters” of what I’m looking for. Finally, don’t you think we ought to say up-front on the site exactly what CS is? You may think this is daft but not everyone (especially in the US) would have heard of it, or its longevity and the current format of the page gives no clue to what the site if really about!
 * 4) Could you delete the article on director Ian Wright? I think it should be Ian White and he already has his own page.
 * 5) Could you do your magic and create an episode template for me for The Brothers McGregor? I’m think I’m in a position to do an entry for each episode and a short intro article although info is very thin on the ground. Each time I did my own episode template I buggered it up. I think we agreed the colour orange for it many month’s ago. Cheers!--Jtomlin1uk 17:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A few more things
Firstly I thought I'd summarise some of my recent points for this new page.
 * Can we somehow do a screencapture, or speak to someone at corrie.net to get hold of their picture of Connie Rathbone?
 * Any chance you could answer my querry on the help forum re: linking to categories.

Sorry for categorising Connie's page as AotW instead of Rita's - how dumb of me! :o I'll also say at this point that although I've indicated that I want to spend less time on here in the short term, I will make it my personal reponsibility to make sure I keep Connie's page up to date :)

Now I shall move on to my thoughts on John's points, and your replies.

1) John suggested removing repeat data from individual episode note pages. I don't think there is anything wrong with duplication with things like this. If I was looking at an episode I would expect to see details of special repeats on that page. So removing, I'd say no. But there's nothing wrong with having an all-in-one version either: "List of special repeats". If you decide that you would like ITV2 repeats listed, let me know and I'll undertake that responsibility myself. It wouldn't be too much of a diversion for me to do that. Like you though I wonder if its going a little too far. I suppose technically yes, if this place is going to be as complete and comprehensive as possible it SHOULD be there, but on the other hand, maybe it's a little too anal? Only 'maybe', though. There's certainly no harm in it being there. As I say I'm perfectly happy to collate this data myself if you would like me too :) There are two more special repeats that I know of, though I haven't got round to checking exact dates/times yet (my own TV Times/Radio Times collection is currently pretty much inaccessible). I was going to do these myself as and when I could but I'll have a word with John about them...

2) John said: "Large pages seem to be very slow in ‘reacting’ when typing on them". Ah, so thats why I was having problems! I thought it was just my computer being slow! I hadn't contributed enough to your page to put two and two together!

3) Wow! I love the new left hand navigation thingy. A couple of minor quibbles though. Before, we had about half a dozen Articles of the Week listed on the arrow, now we don't have any. Shouldn't at least the current one be on the arrow? Or else remove the arrow all-together. I was going to say about the forums no longer being arrowed but I think its probably better like that - you can then see if either has been added to recently rather than having to click on both. Did you forget to add actors, or decide not to bother? It was (and still is) one of the three you picked for your 'main entry points' on the homepage. So I was surprised to see it absent. We've had a lot of new actor pages added recently as well thanks to our mystery over-enthusiastic linker (I meant to put enthusiastic rather tnan excitable the other day by the way). I was wondering actually should we have a separate category for guest actors? Our linking friend picks so many obscure names that most people have never heard of (Joost Buitenweg anyone?) that the well known actors aren't so easy to find. As for a 'what is CS' section, well the first thing perhaps to ask is, if you don't already know, would you care? But there's no harm in a short summary explaining why CS is so notable. Say something about it being one of the longest running shows on British TV, and by far the longest on commercial TV (next oldest on ITV is Emmerdale commencing October '72), and about it rarely being out of the Top 2 most watched programmes here. And maybe something about it reflecting typical (ish) lives of the ordinary working class people of Britain or something like that. Something fairly short and snappy I think, and then direct them to the main Coronation Street article to learn more.

4) I have a suggestion for your talk page. Why not have a special 'articles that need deleting' heading at the top. Quite a few of your 90 sections on the first talk page were for this and I thought it might be easier if they were all together?? You said to John corrie.net is full of errors. I must confess I got my 'Rita May appeared in every episode of Children's Ward' from there, so I hope its true! I do know for certain that she lasted the entire run of the show though.

5) Orange...my favourite colour. I'm liking it already! I'll be buying Pardon the Expression too I should think though I don't know when I'd get round to watching it - I haven't watched the Corrie box sets yet! But these sort of releases need to be supported to encourage them to release more. On that note - PLEASE buy Emmerdale Farm Volume 1 - there's no sign of a volume 2 and there's so much good stuff I've read about that would be coming in the next batch! Also we want to encourage them to think more Corrie is viable. I think they should go at least to episode 24 - but preferably as long as it remains viable. Hopefully we'll see them start releasing them in time for the 50th next year. I'm currently working my way through the first 10 volumes of the Crossroads Archive. They say apparantly sales were dipping significantly by volume 14 which I find sad as I specifically bought volume 15 as an extra one as it covered the christmas episoedes. I want to see all the christmas corrie! If people stop buying Crossroads just before it gets to christmas, what hope have we got?!! Rant over :) As for Classic Who - weirdly I watched The Visitation for the first time on the same day that Graeme started impersonating Fred! Checking how he spelt his name I just noticed he seems to be missing from current characters. I see John's made the most recent changes. John your slacking! :p I'm off to have words!... :) TellyFan 01:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we somehow do a screencapture, or speak to someone at corrie.net to get hold of their picture of Connie Rathbone?
 * Do you mean the one that's on their front page right now? It's just a publicity picture, and not the property of corrie.net, so a screencapture is all thats needed.
 * I wasn't suggesting that they held the copyright to the picture! As I'd previously explained, I don't know how to do screencaptures (unless its from a DVD). Didn't I read somewhere that you or someone here has a contact at Granada? Don't they get sent publicity photos as well? We should be getting support from Granada for this site, don't you think? Anyway, that's another matter. I don't care how we get hold of the picture, just so long as we get a copy.
 * I've found a picture now. Clicking pictures and then clicking 'Save Target As' isn't the same thing as a screen capture though, is it?


 * Any chance you could answer my querry on the help forum re: linking to categories.
 * Done.
 * Seen. Thank you.


 * John's point 1)
 * I think he has agreed ITV2 repeats on individual pages is possibly a bit much. I will collect data which can go on an ITV2 page showing general trends. Of course we have to have a limit somewhere, or else we'd have to note dates episodes were broadcast abroad as well. I think its currently only Ireland, Canada and New Zealand that show it (I expect Ireland are basically in synch anyway, are they??) so you might say thats not an unreasonable or especially difficult thing to add, but of course in the past it used to be shown in all sorts of places - would we really want to list all those broadcast dates? I do think Granada Plus airdates are quite notable though - and the information is already available on corrie.net.
 * Of course overviews of what country showed which batch of episodes and when they started and ceased showings would be of interest. Dunno how we'd find out though!


 * John's point 3)
 * Regarding a 'what is CS section' you might like to note also that Corrie is the UK's fourth longest running show after Panorama (November '53), The Sky at Night (Apr '57) and Blue Peter (October '58).

End of Part One! --TellyFan 17:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Part Two: Daaaaa Daa Daa Daa Daa Daa, Daaaaa...

In the ad break lol not only have I found a picture I was able to download, but I found Rita May's agent page too so I've been able to make her page even better :)

Just another quick word about Emmerdale - don't be put off by modern Emmerdale. You don't look old enough to have seen it back in '72, though you might perhaps remember the 80s. But even by then the cast was growing and the emphasis was changing. It was very much focused on the lives of the Sugden family when it started, with only Amos at the pub and the new rich townie from Bradford and his daughter as other major characters, though there were some interesting minor characters too. Jack Sugden as written by creator Kevin Laffan had some great witty lines. I really would recommend it.

Have I come from the DWF? If your asking if I ever go there the answer is infrequently. I'm registered, but under my present name I've only posted on the 'request to change your username' forum. If your asking if I found this site via DWF the answer is no. If I'd ever visited DWF it was strictly for something to do with Who (though I have peeked at the CS thread twice I think since joining here). If you were asking how did I find this place, I can't say for certain cos I lurked for a while, but it was quite possibly via the link on wikipedia, or else it was probably google. Btw as of now I've just had three looks at the Corrie thread. Last time was sometime before post #448 (7-12 April). And the first time was the day I joined here, as I saw an article talk post where you mentioned said thread. (Not only did I see the post, I replied - though you never seemed to notice :. I might pop in to the Corrie thread on DWF and say 'hello' sometime. You should recognise me ;)

Speaking of things you never replied to (this'll be on Forum talk:Momo1 page), did you used to frequent the Restoration Team forum? Even Steve Roberts admitted he was surprised how many lurkers there were who sudenly announced how sad they were it was closing (I was one of those lurkers). It makes me wonder how many lurkers there are here? I joined a) cos I could answer your query (I'd been trying to find visual evidence myself and IIRC had only recently found it), b) I could answer the First Episode Transcript query someone had, but most of all c) I generally felt guilty enjoying the excellent information available on the site and basically just leeching off of you. There MUST be lurkers on here. If only one in a million viewers had found this site that would still be more people than are currently contributing. I saw just now John subtly advertising the place over on DWF, for what I am sure was not the first time. They must know about it by now. Why is everybody hiding? Do you not find it a little infuriating? People on the RTforum explained they lurked cos they had nothing worthwhile to contribute. But anyone who watches the show and has decent gramatical skills and the like can do SOMETHING to help, and you don't have to watch the show at all to be able to help editing Mr Linky's(!) posts. So there's no such excuse here. Wel it makes me cross anyway!

(Btw, should you go hunting me out on DWF, the post I said I was going to make was to none other than Steve Roberts pleading not to delete the whole thing just yet, but it became redundant when I decided to just get on and finish it that night.)

Right well I think I've gone on quite long enough. Once I get going there's no stopping me lol! #Da Da Daaaaaa, Dum-di-di-dum. Da (OK you get the idea) :D --TellyFan 02:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes
Thanks for the quick implementation of what I asked for or suggested. I take you point re the repeats and will hold fire until I get more data and then we can see how the info patterns out over the years - an overall article might be better. If Tellyfan could start assembling present day data for future use that would be a help. I take your point over the McGregor template colour - please change it if you wish. Cheers!--Jtomlin1uk 08:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Delinking
David, Is it possible to restrict updates to this site to registered users only? I ask because I'm getting heartily sick and tired of our delinking friend in New Zealand. I applaud his (or her) efforts to contribute to this site but it has now reached the stage where their contributions are so minimalistic that I cannot feel that we'd be better off without them. Yesterday I went over several of their efforts and realized that they'd put in no research at all, even on this site, before creating their entries. One actor was stated as having played a single role but a quick link on "what links here" and they actually had four roles against them and several more parts on IMDB. I suddenly realized the damage that this person has been doing: they have created pages which are semi-complete at best and we have no way of easily finding out and going back over what they have done because they've all been created by a series of different IP addresses (all registered in Canterbury, New Zealand) which would take hours to plod through and change. I've signed on today, with various intentions as to what I'm going to do, and am being forced to research and correct another raft of entries created during the night, otherwise they get lost in the morass of pages.--Jtomlin1uk 07:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Edited to add (now I've got my rant out of the way) that if we force this person to create a profile then we can communicate with them more easily and guide them as to the minimum standards to follow when creating a page.--Jtomlin1uk 08:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of balance
My first thought on seeing John's message this morning was 'hear, hear'. Believe it or not however, I actually have a few things to say in defence of New Zealink as I shall now call them! Yes, the posts our damn annoying, and John has more right than the rest of us to get annoyed as he ends up correcting most of them. But doesn't todays Zoe Henry issue for example, show why Zealink is serving a purpose in terms of quality control? We have now realised that the original entry is spelt incorrectly. We now have a correct page for Zoë Henry with an umlaut on and I've learnt a new word! Also, I was having a look on the Orphaned Pages page tonight and wondered why 'Beatrice Kelley' was an orphan. A check on IMDb confirms this spelling is correct, but on the (thankfully few) episodes she appeared in she was only credited on our episode pages as 'Beatrice Kelly'. This is another issue that probably would have remained unnoticed. Some of Zealinks' pages do occasionally give off a slightly interesting piece of information. Yes 99% have an annoying English, but this penchant for listing nationalities occasionally throws up something interesting such as Edward de Souza (Colin Grimshaw) being a "British actor of Portuguese descent". Another was Harvey Virdi (Nina Mandal) who apparantly has Italian descent. (Edit: The other one I was thinking of was Doctor Anwar (Jerry Mortons' Dr), played by someone who is "English/Burmese". (Billy Walker also went out with a chineese person once, and that actor is apparantly actually American) TellyFan 03:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC) ) Information like this shows a (small) degree of research. I'd agree that lists of programmes actors have been in seems limited to what they've watched (a partcilar favourite would seem to be Hetty Wainthrop Investigates!). I must agree about not researching other roles they have payed in the show. Though it was good for me - my heart sunk when I saw an entry had been submitted for Rita May when I already had one largely written. To my delight though Zealink had only mentioned Brenda Kelly and not her previous three roles. This was the day after I'd done entries for them all so it shows they're not reading whats going on, but they come up with such random actor biogs that I honestly think it was just a coincidence. (A shame though as I'd been (mildly) looking forward to seeing Rita ascend up the bottom of the Most Wanted Pages list as I entered the rest of my pages!) I'd also like to say in Zealinks' defence that you can't use 'what links here' until after you have submitted a page (unless I am much mistaken), though they could always do an edit to add more afterwards, of course.

Of course, overlinking aside, many many of Zealinks pages are TOTALLY substandard and are a waste of space. I understand that two overriding principles of wiki-ing are that all pages should have a category and all pages should link somewhere else. After delinking, many are left with only 'Coronation Street' (surely we shouldn't count this on a Corrie wiki!) and (though occasionally not(!)), the name of a character. But character and actor are already 'married' on the episode pages. If we want to see who played what, we can just use search and it'll soon tell us. So really we're left with pages that don't really do anything linkwise. If the same appraoach was adopted to the characters they played we'd be left with (Coronation Street) aside) a circular link basically. When you look at it like this it only serves to highlight how near-worthless many of Zealinks contributions are. Of course I realise I am preaching to the converted here.

What perhaps we should do is change our approach to Zealinks entries. Instead of taking time to laboriously delink etc, we should just put a 'stub' tag on them so that we can easily find them another time (John mentioned having 'no way of easily finding out and going back over what they have done').One of the cleanup tags could go on as well, but making it a stub of course puts it in Category:Articles Stubs.

From your last comment on my talk page David I can tell you're not aware that IP addresses do sometimes change (I shall personally demonstrate this myself over on the 'Forum talk:Momo1' page after I have finished writing to you). The only way, therefore, that we are going to atract Zealink's attention is if we manage to talk to them while they are in the middle of their contributions. I see when you attempted to speak to them yesterday you suggested they create a user page. This in itself isn't a problem: Hopeless20 manages fine without one afterall. I think that you should be clear that you are asking them to registr a Username. But then of course they might just think to themselves 'no thanks, I'm happy as I am', which presumably they are or they would have registered by now. So I think really, as John has attmepted a couple of times in the past, we need to highlight at the time that we are having problems with they're contributions, rather than wait until they have registered to do it.

I think that's all I've got to say on the subject for now! 'Tis getting late anyway.

Tildes >>>TellyFan 02:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OMG! How stupid of me not to realise that the entry for 'Harvey Virdi' must be a mistake. No mention in it of her having Indian descent. Zealink must have put Italian by mistake! I forgot of course also that if a clean-up tag is put on you can see a list of all articles that have one, so no need to make them all stubs. One more thing before I must go: speaking of orphaned articles, I may be un-orphaning some of them tonight ;). Watch this space. :) Gotta go for now.

1960s casts
You'll have noticed that I have added a lot of cast lists to the 1965 pages over the past two days and have just completed that year. Like your earlier entries I got them from the TV Times, from the British Library when I was checking non-networked transmissions of Pardon the Expression. I did a couple of checks yesterday against Daran Little's 40th anniversary book where he lists the "top twenty" appearances for cast members by year and, to my great surprise, we tally exactly on two cast members that I checked – Ena Sharples who was in 56 episodes in 1965 and David Barlow who was in 62. I did, as you know, treat the TV Times entries with great caution but I now think that I was mistaken. 1961 is vague, incomplete and of little use but from the actor's strike onwards until 1968/9 it appears to be very accurate for the regular cast members but has various guest cast missing – Channel TV Times could fill in the gaps thereafter. I have a list of four guests who are mentioned in the synopsis for 1965 episodes but TV Times doesn't credit them – for future investigation! – and there could be other guest cast members who neither the synopsis nor TV Times mentions, such as Steve in Episode 521. Nevertheless I think we could assemble an episode cast list for the overall decade which is over 80-85% complete and accurate, which is some going.--Jtomlin1uk 13:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Missing
Just a note to advise you that I'm off for a long weekend tomorrow and won't be signing back on until Tuesday, possibly Wednesday – don't take my absence as a sign that I've given up – far from it!--Jtomlin1uk 11:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Monday's episode updates
Just a qucikie before I sign of for now - do you not think we should take advantage of occasions where characters hark back to the past? We might have youngsters coming on just to see what happenned in episodes they missed, and if we reference things like Annie Walker and they think "Who??" it may encourage them to explore the site deeper which can only be a good thing! A specific reference and link to the jubilee episodes might be good, too, and even to Newton and Ridley (via the barmat)! TellyFan 16:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Screengrabs
David, Could I ask a favour of your screengrab ability to get a few scans from the 24th December 1962 episode for the page I have just created for Lady Lawson Loses? There's a scene right near the start of the episode where the camera closes in an a programme that a petrified Emily holds in her hands and also an image of the cast taking their curtain call near the end of the episode. One of Emily in a faint wouldn't be bad either. Thanks very much.--Jtomlin1uk 18:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks David, uncropped please if it shows the full television picture and nothing else and just the cast for the curtain call picture. Thank you!--Jtomlin1uk 10:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Lady Lawson Loses
David, A sincere thanks for the feedback - it's nice to produce something and not get tumbleweed! As regards your comments you are absolutely right. I've created various links over the past year and been conscious that I was suggesting the creation of a page that would say very little and be almost stub class. When I was getting 1962 cast lists on Saturday I came across the TV Times pages On Lady Lawson and got somewhat carried away when I realised that I had something I could put down. Looking at the page now I see that there are two articles in there - one on the play and one on the competition (which I still think to be of interest). As regards the category I admit that I took the easy way out there. I loathe creating uncategorised pages but we are facing a problem at the moment as there are actual or wanted pages on this site which do need categories creating for them. I see four more seperate ones that are needed and my titles below are the best suggestions I can come up with: Thoughts?--Jtomlin1uk 13:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Individuals connected with Coronation Street" (Victoria Wood, John Betjeman, Laurence Olivier, Cliff Richard, Russell Harty) - people who have not had a credited part in the programme but who have had some impact on the programme's culture.
 * "Emphemera" (or "Odds and Sods"!!) - The Mural, Hairnet, Flying Ducks
 * "Real Life Events" (The Commonwealth Games, Christmas (?) The Millenium, The Silver Jubilee) - which have featured in the programme's narrative
 * "Publicity" - The TV Times competition I stated above, the 30th anniversary television special, 1961 Blackpool illuminations switch-on by Vi Carson, another other TV Times publicity actions (except for their four special issues with go nicely under the "merchandise" category)
 * Your suggestions for categories sound like good ones. As you can see, I've already made the changes to split the article but I'll reverse the changes now and do seperate sections as you suggest.--Jtomlin1uk 15:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem
David, I'm trying to create a page and getting the following error message: "Coronation Street Wiki has restricted the ability to create new pages. You can go back and edit an existing page, or log in or create an account." - and I am logged in - any ideas?--Jtomlin1uk 10:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems okay now. Just a glitch it seems.--Jtomlin1uk 12:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Next Week's Episodes
Just letting you know of a few schedule changes next week due to Britain's got talen semi final week and the Champions's leauge final on Wednesday. Here the transmisson schedule as follows.

Monday 25th May-Normal two episodes at 7:30 and 8:30 Tuesday 26th May-Episode transmitting at 8:00 as a lead into Britain's got talent semi finals Wednesday 27th May-No episode due to the Champions league final Thursday 28th May-Episode transmitting at 8:00 as above Friday 29th May -No 8:30 Episode due to Britain's got talent semi finals

Hope this helps Hopeless20 13:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Favour
Updated but only at 6.00pm when I got in, I'm afraid. I couldn't see a new picture in the upload log though?--Jtomlin1uk 16:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Two things
David, Could you delete the redirect page which goes from character Jill Morris to actress Linda Cook? The site is looping between the two. Also, I've got enough info together to start doing the pages for the 1999 Brighton special. Could you create an episode template for me? Lord knows what colour. I'll let you decide that one! Many thanks.--Jtomlin1uk 16:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Cheers for that. As regards the telethon Hilda returned and immediately got into a slanging match (more a sneering match actually) with Vera Duckworth in the Rovers when Hilda revealed that Dr Lowther had proposed to her. She went on to visit Stan's grave and as she tided it up spoke to her dead husband and told him of the proposal but also said that she'd turned him down as no one could replace Stan. Jean Alexander was then seem back on the Rovers set, out of costume and applauded by the cast, as she collected a cheque for charity. This is all from memory as - to my regret - I didn't tape it although I'm pretty sure I do have the Doris Speed return from two years before. Another candidate for the "On this Day" is the first meeting between Deirdre and Jon Lindsay on 28/5/1997.--Jtomlin1uk 12:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Casts
David, I've noticed that you've removed some cast members from episodes when updating them after, presumably, looking at the visual updates. The problem is they some of them are in the episode! Take 6194 on 28th December 2005 as an example. Two characters you've deleted are Sean and Audrey but Sean is clearly referred to in the narrative of the picture of Tracy and Charlie in the Rovers and Audrey is referred to in 11th paragraph of the update of Corrienet for that episode. In addition, the cast list as it was clearly matches that on the ITN.source site (although that can contain the odd error and does need checking). Are you using another source to make these changes?--Jtomlin1uk 12:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things
Please could you get me a screengrab of Bob Mason as Terry Bradshaw from either the 9th February or 18th August 1976 episodes on the DVD and Stephen Mallatratt (the DJ) from the 16th April 1979 episode? Also, are you interested in expanding the writer and director pages to have a list of the episodes that they contributed to, in the same way that we have done for some of the more recent regular character pages? For some of the writers/directors who contributed an awful lot of scripts (HV Kershaw, Adele Rose) it may need a separate page but I think it would be useful.--Jtomlin1uk 08:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony Warren
Further to our messages about adding lists of episodes written/directed to the various pages, could you have a look at the page for Tony Warren where I've started to list his episodes. Do you think this format looks okay or would it be better either as a table or in columns? I'd value your opinion. Thanks. --Jtomlin1uk 15:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A Request
Will do. Enjoy the trip.--Jtomlin1uk 09:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor Characters
David, I've been doing a lot of work over the last few days on categories. I've just started looking at minor characters and noticed that John had taken out a "Coronation Street Character" category out of a minor character page.

From looking at the Coronation Street Character list (from the Navigation bar at the side), it would be my understanding that this list should be built into an exhaustive list of all characters - either minor or major ones.

Have I lost the plot, or shouldn't all characters have a "Coronation Street Character" category at the bottom of their pages? I have already asked John and he suggests your advices would be appreciated. I am aware that this is potentially mammoth task, but I'm up for the challenge. Regards. --Karen2310 16:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the opportunity of discussion in the Watercooler, I've added my thoughts too. I've noticed to my disbelief tonight that a user has created two more categories just off the cuff - Male Characters and Female Characters... there are (at last count) 13 pages been added to the male one and 37 to the female. I have a feeling they should be deleted (do we really need help in distinguishing a character's gender?) but didn't think it was my place to say anything to said user. If we can agree that these categories should be removed, I'll clear them all out over the course of tomorrow. Cheers.--Karen2310 23:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Elsie
I've finished adding the latest batch of cast lists from 1960's/70's editions of TV Times and Channel Viewer and we now have a complete-ish set of cast lists for the first ten years of the programme. My question is about Elsie Tanner. For about a year after her marriage to Alan Howard the programme's makers carried on crediting her as "Tanner". Should our cast lists for the period concerned credit her the same way or do it as we did with Episode 1036 (21st December 1970)? Views appreciated.--Jtomlin1uk 13:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being a bit thick but do you mean, yes, do it as per 1036?--Jtomlin1uk 14:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

List of appearances
New forum topic - would welcome your thoughts.--Jtomlin1uk 19:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note
Hi David, just a quick word as I have just mentioned this to John so it only seems fair to mention it to you as well, since I've seen you do similar in the past:

''I've noticed you on occasions delinking various talk pages. I know this isn't wikipedia, but the principles are the same, and they do advise there NOT to do this. It is not necessary and can even change the context of what has been written. This is why this has particularly annoyed me - in particular, in conversations about "Zealink" as I call him, it now looks as if I am complaining at the mere mention of people being, for example, British, when in fact what I am talking about is the fact that the contributor has written British. Again, I would appreciate it if you refrained from doing this in future. I am aware that David has done this a bit too so I shall mention it to him too in the interests of fairness.''

''I know I haven't been about much of late so sorry to come back all moaney, but I did want to raise this issue at some point, and after what I wrote yesterday it seemed best to get it out of the way. I'll try and get back into contributing properly soon, for now though it'll just be a Connie update lol.''TellyFan 15:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Link errors
David, just in case you were wondering "what the heck?" with so many edits at the moment, I'm correcting all the links and text to read The Kabin (being the correct business name). When I've gone through my eight full pages of links, I've then decided to get rid of all the different variants of Freshco before anything gets created. I'm still trying to catch most of the substandard pages as they get created, so all of the above, plus general editing as I see it should keep me busy for a wee while at least. Regards --Karen2310 11:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Your user page #2
Hi David,

I intend to get back into Corriepedia properly very soon and wanted to clear the air with you before I do. You'll recall I'm sure that I'd noticed a discrepancy in versions of your user page, to which you then confirmed that the original version was made up for a more interesting story. I expressed my disappointment while also saying I was prepared to draw a line under it, only to find you didn't appear to have understood my post. I therefore explained again.

Four days passed. Over this time I began to feel, and thought you might feel too, that having this conversation displayed so publicly was not a good thing for you or the site. I also didn't think it was correct wiki process to just 'cover it up' by removing the sections from talk - plus it remained the case that others may notice in the future and wonder about it as I had done. I felt I had come up with a choice of two solutions which would get around the predicament. I didn't expect the reply I got. I think before I say anything else it may be best if I quote your reply for ease:

''I don't mean to be rude, but what is the big deal? I don't get it. You'd think I'd done something terrible they way you're putting it. I'm going to scrap the whole section from my talk page, it's completely irrelevant to the site. I think you should do the same. David 09:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)''

At this point I want to make it clear that I hadn't felt personally offended by your interesting story, despite what I believe you may have thought otherwise. However, with this post I WAS offended. You may recall I had already essentially gone on "vacation" before I brought this up, so at this point I decided that it was best if I left it for the time being as I had more important things to be worrying about than continuing this any further. Now I am intending to get back into Corriepedia I want to get this sorted out.

Since you "don't get it", I shall try and explain once more. You, in your own words, lied. Yes it may have been a minor one but it is still what it is. As I said at the time "it doesn't exactly inspire confidence though, does it?" - especially as it was a completley unnecessary one (IMO). It's a bit like what John once said over at the DWF about the mistakes in the 40th anniversary book. I can't quote him exactly now...well actually yes I can! It turns out I copied that section, I think there were a couple of mistakes he'd found that I didn't konw about and I copied the whole paragraph. Anyway, John said "Quite frankly there are a lot of errors on this type of info and it makes me suspect more of the data where I don't know what's right and what isn't." I think this idea of doubting info must surely extend to lies, too - which is, afterall, deliberately incorrect information. I think it is only natural to be at least a little bit weary of sources of information that you know have at times proved to be incorrect. Just watching Corrie also highlights how strongly some people feel about lies - look at how Tara felt, for instance. Someone somewhere made an interesting observation that Tara and Dierdre should have swapped partners! Ken decided to be honest about his wrongdoings and Dierdre wished he'd kept his mouth shut lol. Chesney has also been reacting badly to dishonesty. It's a "big deal" basically because some people are more bothered about these kinds of things than others. You must understand this, surely??

I never said, and never meant to imply, that you had done something "terrible". I maintain that, in my opinion, it doesn't look good. As I said at the beginning of all this "Who knows, maybe other lurkers noticed and it put them off contributing? Perhaps unlikely, but you never know." The 'way I was putting it' was to try and minimise this possibility. By removing it from talk, less people would know about it, yet by adding it to your user page, those who had noticed could still get an explanation. I honestly felt that you would be pleased to be able to remove the conversation from such a visible talk page, while still making it easy to find for those others who might notice the discrepancy. This was why I came up with the two suggestions of a way of doing it. Not because it was "terrible", just that in my opinion it didn't do you or the site any favours and was perhaps a bit damaging for the site. I was just trying to avoid embarassment for the site.

Far from thanking me for trying to help make the whole thing become more discreet, I get told that it's not even relevant to the site! Why not? It's this site where it had been written! On account of it not being relevant, you decided to delete it. This mightn't have seemed so bad if you'd maintained this policy, but the nonsense post about Arthur Scottorn is still on your talk page! I'm not actually that bothered that my ramblings were removed - the important bits were your explanatory replies. The problem though is, who would expect to find an explanation to something on your user page to only be given on my talk page?!

You're entitled to disagree that it is even remotely damaging to the site, and to think my ideas for making it more discreet were rubbish, but it would surely be foolish to believe that I sm the ONLY person who could possibly be remotely bothered about it, which is why *I* don't get *you* not getting it?!

Anyway, thats my explanatory response to your last response. Perhaps from the length you can see why I waited till I had more time available lol. As for the lie itself, as I said at the time, I'm completely willing to draw a line under it. What's done is done and I don't want to have ongoing strained relations, or feel the need to quit, just because you chose to tell an interesting story over a correct one. I only brought it back up on 10th May because as I said earlier I really honestly thought you'd be pleased to be able to make it more discreet. I only bring it back up now to answer your points, explain why I was offended, and have a chance to clear the air. I hope we can do this now?

P.S. I like your new user page - the "Why Coronation Street?" section was interesting to read. I could do with more than my one-line entry which I only really bothered with to stop my name being in red lol! I might use your entry to inspire me :)

Anyway, that's that out of the way at last! Now I'm off to bed :) TellyFan 02:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "I don't understand why you won't let this go"
 * "what is the big deal? I don't get it. You'd think I'd done something terrible they way you're putting it."
 * As I said last night my intention has been to clear the air. There's nothing wrong with having different opinions and viewpoints, but is it not a good thing to try and understand each others point of view? You said you ddn't get the big deal, so I attempted to explain. I also don't see what is wrong with having a right of reply when you say I have been talking as if you've done something terrible. I tried to explain that this was not what I had been implying. Also if we are going to have a good working relationship we should be able to be honest with each other, therefore I think it only fair that I let you know if I have been offended.


 * "You think I've done the site a disservice and raised doubts about my credbility, I disagree."
 * As I said, you are entitled to disagree. This isn't about attempting to make you agree with everything I say. It's about understanding each others viewpoints. I don't actually want to leave Corriepedia, but if I'm going to ask for advice, or give an opinion, or whatever else I don't want there to be a cloud above us. Indeed, I'd hope we'd still be able to have some friendly banter.


 * I don't understand this keen-ness to have it all deleted. Do you want this to all start over again when someone else notices? And well they might - you are the admin here, and with comments about the site being here more than a year, its clear to anyone there's been earlier versions of the page. Why shouldn't they be interested what the admins page used to look like? Why shouldn't they then think 'oh, that's a bit wierd, he's clearly contradicted himself there'?


 * It is worth remembering that we both have the same basic ultimate aim here - to make this site as good as it can be. I think we both deserve some respect, part of which involves respecting each others opinions - surely a lot easier when you have some understanding of each others opinions?? If you say to me "I don't understand why you said this" or you appear to misunderstand my meaning, is it not correct that I should attempt to clarify my position? I think perhaps sometimes you just don't read what I write carefully enough - it still baffles me that when I first said 'lets draw a line under it', and even changed the subject, you then wrote "Can't we put it all behind us?".


 * You say you don't know how to reply. May I suggest you try and understand that I am trying to clear the air here. I am not your enemy, I just don't want bad feeling between us. So when you express a lack of understanding of my points I try and help make it clearer. As I concluded last time: "I only bring it back up now to answer your points, explain why I was offended, and have a chance to clear the air. I hope we can do this now?" There was no other ulterior motive than this.


 * Why would I bother complimenting you on your new user page and things like that if I didn't want to let it go? Anyway, I must go now. TellyFan 16:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that was certainly brief but if you regard the air as cleared I suppose that'll have to do!
 * By the way, when you deleted the section on Arthur Scottorn, did you realise that you'd also deleted John's Tony Warren section, too? I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to reinstate it.TellyFan 23:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Becky Granger/McDonald
David, hope you don't mind but I've moved Becky Granger to Becky McDonald. I did double-check on Friday's cast list to see what surname she was credited under. I've also amended the cast lists on Episode 7141 and 7142 to reflect. Regards, --Karen2310 14:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1968 strike
Can you read this page for me for clarity - it's a bit of a complicated story! Thanks. --Jtomlin1uk 19:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

New infobox
David, I've implemented the new infobox on Joan Akers and Dev Alahan - Dev was a bit more difficult, as there was information lacking on the original box, so was running round the site for ages to get the correct links! Anyway, just to let you know that the "Image Line" is missing from the template, so I had to manually type it in for Dev. I've also dropped you a mail (or maybe two in error!) Regards. --Karen2310 19:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Title sequence
David, I hope you don't mind but I've made a few changes to the Title Sequence page today as I managed to trace the exact episode which saw the debut of the 1990 sequence (from the Daily Express) and it motivated me to input the later changes, courtesy of the Corriespace site. Could I ask you to change something in the gallery? The picture of the 1964 sequence is wrong as it starts with the "Granada Television International" logo but this was purely used for overseas sales prints (hence the reason all these episodes exist to this day) whereas in the UK Granada used the logo we picture in 1960 until (I think) 1968 when the station introduced the upwards pointing "G". Irrespective of when the change occured, viewers in the 1960s never saw the "International" logo - could you change the picture? Cheers.--Jtomlin1uk 22:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, another thought - and if you don't want to do this, I quite understand - but would it be worth adding another gallery line to show the Colour strike sequence and that the opening Granada logo dispensed with the "Colour Production" line for that set of episodes? Perhaps a bit trivial.--Jtomlin1uk 22:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)