User talk:Xx-connor-xX

Welcome
Hi, welcome to ! Thanks for your edit to the Charlie Stubbs page.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! Karen2310 (talk) 01:47, August 13, 2016 (UTC)

Family categories
There is a practice in place on this wiki that family categories are only created when there are at least four members to put in them, and since none of the ones you have added do, they will all be deleted! Karen2310 (talk) 07:29, August 13, 2016 (UTC)

Oh sorry! I didn't know about this and thought it would be okay due to the fact that there's two other family categories with less than four members in (the Bradshaw familywith three and the Schofield family with two). Xx-connor-xX (talk) 14:52, August 13, 2016 (UTC)


 * Didn't realise those two family categories had been overlooked, so I apologise! I'll delete those for now. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. The four character practice is stated on our Manual of style page, so I'll rectify that. There's also a whole host of useful info on there. Regards, Karen2310 (talk) 14:57, August 13, 2016 (UTC)

Creating new pages
Some of your pages have been deleted, specifically names that you've just decided to add links to yourself. There has been no evidence throughout the programme's history to suggest that Emily Bishop's sister Nora married into the same family of Seddons as Sally. Please don't create pages for names that aren't linked (we don't have enough information to warrant a page creation in these instances). Another page you created was nowhere near up to standard. Please ask questions if you are unsure, it saves other people time and work too! Karen2310 (talk) 09:34, November 27, 2016 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, please make sure that your pages are complete. The creation of Shona Ramsey's article is missing an infobox, and was also lacking a defaultsort and categories. I've just amended the latter two issues but added an "Incomplete Template" to this page. Karen2310 (talk) 07:23, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please remember to add an edit summary to every change you make to a page. Not only do we not have the time to check every single edit that's not summarised, it also highlights your own contributions to the site. Thank you. Karen2310 (talk) 23:26, November 30, 2016 (UTC)
 * And the second request to do this, please! Karen2310 (talk) 23:27, December 5, 2016 (UTC)

Nathan Curtis
In a complete rush-job of creating a page for a character who has appeared in one episode, once more there are several things missing: no infobox, a lack of links, defaultsort and categories. Maintenance template will now be added, pending deletion if you're unwilling to address these issues. Karen2310 (talk) 17:06, December 26, 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank-you. Although could you please leave templates in place (as per instructions on templates!) Karen2310 (talk) 17:53, December 26, 2016 (UTC)

Blank pages
I'm deleting the two pages you've just created - all they contain is an infobox and categories but absolutely no text. If you're not willing to do a bit of research to create a page proper, then it's not fair to expect someone else to finish off your work!! Karen2310 (talk) 18:21, April 2, 2017 (UTC)
 * What other information would there be to add other than they are the parents of known characters? If you really wanted me to add a sentence or two then I would do so. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 18:33, April 2, 2017 (UTC)


 * Information to these characters are found in literature. There have been many Coronation Street publications through the years which you can glean information from. This is how other character pages from pre-1960 have been created.


 * Also, you have "assumed" Christian Gatley's mother Cath shared the same surname and thrown a link round it to create a page. Since we don't know this, it has never been linked. Could you please work from the "Wanted pages" list as oppose making your own? Thank-you. Karen2310 (talk) 18:39, April 2, 2017 (UTC)

Roger & Sarah Brookes
You might also want to research these two characters more thoroughly too..... Roger Brookes was played by Nigel Carrington and appeared in 10 episodes between 1992 & 1993, Sarah Brookes was played by Zulema Dene and appeared in 8 episodes in the same period. Karen2310 (talk) 18:55, April 2, 2017 (UTC)
 * Or maybe, if you know the information, you could help by putting it in instead of insulting people when they try to update the wiki further?... Xx-connor-xX (talk) 19:03, April 2, 2017 (UTC)
 * No insult was made. The information Karen gave is on the site for all to see, find and use.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 23:35, April 2, 2017 (UTC)
 * If she knew all this information I don't understand why she didn't just update it herself, I personally felt insulted by the way she called me out. If you don't see it in the same way then that is fine, but I took it as an insult. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 23:47, April 2, 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I ask you a question - why did you create those pages? You must be aware that they fall way short on our normal level of detail - your article on Roger Brookes is only five lines long despite him appearing in ten episodes, has no image, and doesn't mention Ted's will being contested and overturned which accounted for most of his screentime. Do you post half a page with the idea that somebody else will come along and finish the job because that's the impression given - hence our reaction. We have enough to do on this site without people giving us extra work. David (talk) 09:58, April 3, 2017 (UTC)
 * I think having a page, even with little detail on, is still better than having no page whatsoever. When I created the page I was actually unaware that Roger had ever turned up in the series, this was my mistake but I still don't understand why Karen would rather waste her time trying to call me out instead of just adding the details in anyway. It would have taken her the exact same amount of time to post the information onto the pages than it would have to post it here. I think this was a display of power. Nothing more. It was quite frankly rude. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 10:24, April 3, 2017 (UTC)
 * You're way off the mark. At the bare minimum, Karen would have to look over ten or more episode synopses and re-edit the mentions of Roger into a full article - that alone takes way longer than you suggest. To write it to our normal level of detail (as we eventually want for all articles) would entail watching some of the character's scenes - his first and last appearances at the very least, to get idea how the actor played him plus any background not mentioned in the synopses. It's a big undertaking. That's why we take issue with your pages. You're doing the easy bit and leaving the rest for us. On your first point, with main pages I agree that we should have something for various reasons which don't apply to a bit player like Roger Brookes. David (talk) 11:09, April 3, 2017 (UTC)
 * I just don't see the reason to call people out. All I want to do is have fun looking back on Corrie's history while also trying to help update the site, I felt the way I was called out was wrong. If you name and shame everyone who has just made a mistake nobody would want to use this site anymore. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 11:15, April 3, 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you feel singled out, that's certainly not my intention. The problem is that this is a massive site but we have only three admins so our work is spread very thinly. Couldn't you put the same amount of time you spend creating half a dozen articles on just one, that way you can get all the relevant info on there? As I alluded to above, watching the episodes isn't required - everything you need should be in the synopses. David (talk) 11:32, April 3, 2017 (UTC)

Re:Rude comments?
I'm sorry that you thought it rude by saying I'm correcting it yet again, but in reality, I had done! As for your updates on minor characters straight after the programme, that's great - as it currently stands I work until 11pm so that's why I can't do them so readily. As for your comments about me not doing any major character statistics for "over" a month, that's not true - they were done at month end in April and they will be done at month end in May - I was on holiday from 6th - 21st May and did not plan to work on the website at that time. Karen2310 (talk) 07:01, May 30, 2017 (UTC)

Re:Uncredited Hope, Joseph and Ruby
Do you mean their List of Appearances pages? It's not up to me, it's something the admins will have to decide on. --Pascal11 (talk) 21:09, March 17, 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes! I've been keeping a spreadsheet as I've been going along. For the two characters you mentioned:
 * Ruby was in 32 episodes in 2012, 36 in 2013, 15 in 2014 and 29 in 2015
 * Hope was in 8 episodes in 2012, 24 in 2013 and 13 in 2014. I haven't finished 2011 but she was in over 40 episodes and I don't know yet about 2010.--Pascal11 (talk) 18:50, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

New categories
Please could you raise a discussion in one of the forums before creating new categories? - this is referred to in Section 7 of the Manual of style page. Thank you. Karen2310 (talk) 12:41, March 31, 2018 (UTC)
 * Please could you stop amending the long-established categories regarding residents and debate the issue first on the community pages please, again as per the manual of style?--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 18:29, April 5, 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologise, I was finding it extremely hard to understand the categories in their current states and did not know that there was to be discussions on such matters. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 18:30, April 5, 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, blocked removed. Please read section 7 that Karen referred you to above a week ago, reverse your changes and begin the discussion. Thank you.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 18:38, April 5, 2018 (UTC)
 * Where do I hold the discussion at? Karen's talk page? Xx-connor-xX (talk) 18:47, April 5, 2018 (UTC)
 * Also I am unable to reverse the changes as I can't delete categories, how long do blocks last on your account as it says I still am. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 18:49, April 5, 2018 (UTC)
 * Connor, once again you are adding new categories without discussion in contravention of the manual of style (section 7) - something you were made aware of on 5th April as per the above. Do we have to block again?--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 08:52, June 14, 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologises, I forgot that the discussion would take place on the forums - I was expecting it to take place in the talk page of the added categories. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 10:18, June 14, 2018 (UTC)

Producer pages
Connor, the changes you have made to the producer pages have far, far, far too much unnecessary detail and far too many links in them. Please reduce considerably. Thank you.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 13:08, May 25, 2018 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. I have adopted the same style as Kate Oates’ page for both Stuart Blackburn and Phil Collinson’s pages. This style clearly outlines IMPORTANT information such as; which main/notable minor characters they have introduced, which characters they have reintroduced and which characters they have recast - before going on to briefly cover the main plots and storylines of each producdr’s era. No other section on this Wikia is dedicated to explaining which producer introduced which characters. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 13:15, May 25, 2018 (UTC)
 * Then Kate Oates' page needs changing as well. It looks like a mass of links with no coherent whole. I agree about the storylines but the characters are a big NO! Please reverse.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 13:18, May 25, 2018 (UTC)
 * I won’t be reversing. You can delete my work if you wish but it took me a long time to piece that information together, I truely believe that it needs reflected here. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 13:23, May 25, 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Goodbye.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 13:24, May 25, 2018 (UTC)

Unfair blocking! FTAO Admins
I have literally only just discovered that I’ve been blocked, I find this absolutely outrageous. I have done nothing wrong whatsoever, certainly nothing deserving a year-long block. What is the reason for this treatment? My last edits were all done on Stuart Blackburn and Phil Collinson’s pages and were not vandalism/misinformation, however it was mutually agreed the work didn’t fit and the edits were undone and the pages were locked. Why was I banned for this? Thanks. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 15:54, May 31, 2018 (UTC)

Actor pages
Please could you add to the actor pages you have created today rather than leaving them in their "raw" state? The other pages you created recently were of a good standard and it would be great if you could copy that style.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 19:54, June 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * Usually I use IMDB as a reliable source but none of the recent few actors I've created seem to have am IMDB page and after research on other sites I'm unable to find any information of their other acting credits - what should be done in this situation? Xx-connor-xX (talk) 20:10, June 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah - I see! In that case, I would put something along the lines of "No other known parts are credited to this actor". It may be that this was their first proper role and in years to come we need to revisit such pages (there are a fair few of them) and see if any further roles have come to light in the interim. It may be that they are usually walk-ons and that this will be their only credited role ever. Thank you for trying to keep up with these pages. There are about 2000+ of them that need creating!--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 20:14, June 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, to put that there are no other known parts. I've done this before when the individual has had an IMDB page but Coronation Street was the only credit, I didn't want to do it here in case I was mistaken. I'll add it to the articles now. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 20:20, June 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, there are a lot of such people, even going back to the 1960s. Other good sources to check for credits aside from IMDB are the BBC Genome site and Theatricalia (though that is very such a site in progress but it does bring up the odd gem)--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 20:23, June 7, 2018 (UTC)
 * Other useful information (hopefully) can be a very brief "padding out" of role info - ie. "Surgeon who attended [whoever] in May 2018 when 'such and such' happened" and a general google search on the actor's name instead of being reliant on specific sites. EG. I've just done said general search on Julie Hannan and found a site which contains information on another TV credit, rafts of theatre credits and graduation details. Karen2310 (talk) 10:26, June 8, 2018 (UTC)
 * Bump. Karen2310 (talk) 08:50, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

An Apology
Sorry about those edits I did, to be honest I'm not even sure myself why I did them. I promise you that it won't happen again. Helloyoungchaps (talk) 15:36, June 12, 2018 (UTC)helloyoungchaps

Maternity duration gaps
Shouldn't be reflected no since the actresses are still under contract at this time. Karen2310 (talk) 11:39, June 22, 2018 (UTC)

thanks mate for the help mate :) (Spice boys (talk) 12:25, June 25, 2018 (UTC)

i was going to try and put information but you beat me to it (Spice boys (talk) 12:31, June 25, 2018 (UTC)

Departures
Although I don't agree with Rosie's departure not being counted, I think Eva, Adam and Susie's are different. The trio have left in a taxi with no word about returning. Just because it's been announced on new sites shouldn't be any different - Jim and Katie's pages haven't been changed despite it being revealed Katie is alive. Danielroxheaps 01:24, July 28, 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no point whatsoever changing information which will have to be reverted in less than a week, the same was done with Eileen's page when it was announced she'd be back. It just isn't necessary to give ourselves more work to do. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 01:34, July 28, 2018 (UTC)
 * You do have a point but Eva will be leaving regardless, most likely with Susie so it would probably be easiest to change it now and just change the last appearance date when she returns and departs again. Danielroxheaps 03:10, July 28, 2018 (UTC)

Character images
Do you need help with knowing how to do character images?--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 11:58, August 4, 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ve added pictures in the past but I’ve always seemed to make them the wrong size, etc Xx-connor-xX (talk) 12:06, August 4, 2018 (UTC)

New catagories
Connor, the manual of style states that new categories must be discussed first before being created. Before I delete your changes please could I ask you to explain a good rationale in order that they can remain.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 00:38, August 22, 2018 (UTC)
 * This was discussed, [//coronationstreet.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Street_Cars https://coronationstreet.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Street_Cars]. I left it for nearly a month to see if anyone wanted to add anything to the discussion, but nobody else did so I thought it would be acceptable to create them. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 00:47, August 22, 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I must confess missed that one. Thank you - and I mean that seriously - thank you for following the rules and procedure on this change and your attention to this matter,--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 00:50, August 22, 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem! Xx-connor-xX (talk) 00:53, August 22, 2018 (UTC)

Michael McGuire
Terrific article! More please! Thank you--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 20:37, September 11, 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Xx-connor-xX (talk) 20:49, September 11, 2018 (UTC)

Task
Connor, how do you fancy being the person responsible for the creation and maintenance of a certain set of pages we need on the site? As you know, David, Karen and I have "divided and conquered" certain pages over the years to keep them up to date but we have a new need and can't take on the extra workload. Interested?--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 13:06, September 21, 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it sounds good, I think I'll be up for it. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 13:08, September 21, 2018 (UTC)
 * Great! It's to create and maintain the "list of appearances" for places. Some are created already such as Alan Howard's Salon and the Friends of Weatherfield Hospital Charity Shop but we need the rest doing. Several things: 1) At the moment, it can only be where the place made its first appearance after 1975, so the Rovers and the main terraced houses are out for now as we haven't yet noted them all. 2) Some of them will need to be on a separate page to the main article as they will be too big and some of them might potentially have to have separate pages for the decades. Ken Barlow - List of appearances is our biggest overall page on the site with well over 4000 entries and, in all honesty, the only page I could ever see getting that large is the Rovers - that's a future problem. Such separate pages will need a new category. 3) Where we have noted down specific rooms on the episode pages in italics, you should do the same. Where a place has been in different locations, then my preference is for separate lists but let's discuss that in the forum. 4) Careful consideration would have to be given to a place that only appeared in one or two episodes - again a forum discussion with your ideas please. It's not glamorous and will be a lot of tedious work to get going but the three of us have been there on many other "list" pages on the site and you just have to get through it by sheer hard slog. Still interested?? --Jtomlin1uk (talk) 13:18, September 21, 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the list of appearances for the businesses/places is something I have been interested in since someone started it (a few years back now I believe, or I may be misremembering). I was a little disappointed when the work seemed to have stopped, but of course it is a complicated and time-consuming effort which I will be priveledged to take over. I presume the same rules for the character LOAs apply - with the businesses only getting their own page when they hit 50 appearances? If so, I'll start work on the newest main business - Speed Daal, in order to get a feel for the page layouts and such. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 13:25, September 21, 2018 (UTC)
 * I also presume that we're talking about when someone steps foot in the building rather than it just being seen on the street? Xx-connor-xX (talk) 13:27, September 21, 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think the 50 appearances rule should be a good one to follow. As regards what's goes on, it should exactly duplicate what's on the episode page. That means for maintenance it would be best to do the updates once the episode page is created. If you think something is missing from an episode page, say so. As a rule of thumb, if someone walks down Rosamund Street with Coronation Street in the background, I add the former but not the latter. I do note what parts of indoor sets are constructed in studio and seen on screen. If someone walks through a hallway of an house and that hallway is seen on screen as part of the outdoor set, I do note it, as does David. As I said, basically follow what we put on the episode page.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 13:38, September 21, 2018 (UTC)
 * And thank you!--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 13:38, September 21, 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I understand completely now. I am already well into recording the Speed Daal totals. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 13:39, September 21, 2018 (UTC)

Great!--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 13:41, September 21, 2018 (UTC) Connor, the work you're doing is going well. Thank you. After being away for a couple of days, I put a note on the Speed Dahl talk page earlier on. While my comment about two columns still holds, on reflection it should perhaps be for places where there are sub-divisions such as Underworld and Speed Dahl while the solicitors can have four columns as there's nothing to add there in italics.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 17:38, September 24, 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I'll also implement the changes on the appearance pages already completed. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 17:43, September 24, 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 19:59, September 24, 2018 (UTC)
 * How is this task going?--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 12:31, October 10, 2018 (UTC)
 * Good, I'm actually doing Inkerman Street right now. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 12:32, October 10, 2018 (UTC)

Why I made the changes to Paula Martin, restated
I stated clearly why I made the changes to Paula Martin. Paula said jealous and angry, though not enough to hit a judge. Horrified is not synonomous with jealous and angry and sounds like an exageration of Tim's feelings, based on the feelings of the person choosing to distort the canon words of the show. That the squash partner is also a judge speaks is a very relevant piece of information to reveal her character, as she is a solicitor. It reveals lines she might cross in her work as a solicitor and foreshadows her crossing those lines less egregariously with Sophie. Her bio reads like she may or may not have been married to Tim and I found the ambiguity odd, since they were married. Do you understand now? (AiKana (talk) 06:15, September 27, 2018 (UTC))
 * I don't appreciate you accusing me of attempting to "distort the canon words of the show". We don't have to use the exact words used in the show - the edits you made prevented the section from running smoothly in my opinion, "horrified" was a more accurate description as - not only would he have been "jealous" and "angry" but he would have been shocked too. The words "jealous" and "angry" were an under-exaggeration, and made it look like Tim was in the wrong whereas these would be the reactions from anyone who was cheated on. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 09:54, September 27, 2018 (UTC)
 * You are distoring canon words of the show. If you want to go on Tim's page and talk about how horrified he might have been, be my guest. This is Paula's page and the canon words of the show are relevent to her character, as I've expanded upon. The imagined reaction that her ex might have had, says things about her ex, not her. You just made more assumptions. Who on earth would think a jealous husband, who is angry, when he finds his wife cheating on him to be in the wrong? Certainly, not I. I'm not a fan of adultery or cheating, though I accept the consequences of my feelings on the subject, when choosing to watch a soap opera. I personally was shocked at Ms. Christian's blase response to Paula telling her, but then I remember her parents are infidelity central, who all get along. I do think Paula was understating things, but not to make her ex sound in the wrong. That's the consequence of the softened lens of time. There's just as much chance, he knew his wife fancied women and men. We don't know if he was shocked or not to see his suspicions realized. There are a lot of possible emotions, but it isn't your place to choose the one you identify with and discard the ones we are certain about. (AiKana (talk) 13:05, October 2, 2018 (UTC))
 * I don't wish to continue a conversation with someone who accuses me of such things, we don't have to write everything word for word - Tim may have been jealous and angry, "horrified" by the betrayal covers both of those words. You have a tendency to overwrite, most notably in your previous post on Paula's talk-page which I refused to read in it's entirety due to being so long.Xx-connor-xX (talk) 13:09, October 2, 2018 (UTC)

Josh Tucker
Thank you for expanding the page and adding onto it. VB1989 (talk) 09:56, September 28, 2018 (UTC)

Tense
Connor, please remember that all character pages should be written (in entirety) in the past tense? a number of articles you've created recently contain a mixture of both past and present tenses. Many thanks. Karen2310 (talk) 14:33, October 12, 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just changed the tense in my last page. Are there any others you know about? Xx-connor-xX (talk) 14:36, October 12, 2018 (UTC)
 * The only other one screaming out to me just now is the article on Charles Beaumont. Karen2310 (talk) 15:35, October 12, 2018 (UTC)