![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I removed the refernce to Tony recently being outed as a porn star as it was refered to before ages ago - I remember an episode where the Burton family ended up accidently watching it.
Also, can people avoid referernces to time? There's a reference to 'last week' somewhere in the article and several references to 'new' or 'recent' characters who have been in it for ages now. It makes the article go out of date quicker.
Like it or not, this page is far too long. There seems to be some dispute over whether to include pages for the separate characters or not, but either way - a wikipedia article about Hollyoaks shouldn't contain a full biography on every single character - a complete biography should have a page of its own. Either get rid of my table and reduce the text to a paragraph per family; or keep the text in its long form but keep the table too. You can't find anything on the page as it is
I admit it doesn't fit in well with the current text, but thats partly because the current text is ridiculously long. If its removed at least a past version will be stored in the history for insertion into a future reworded page.
Smeddlesboy 14:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but (ignoring the sarcasm) that's exactly my point. To do that, you need to have some idea of who you're looking for in the first place (i.e. being a fan). As I understand it, that's not the point of Wikipedia - it should be an encyclopedia article that can be read by someone with little or no understanding of the topic. For example, how would a newcomer know that, to find Russell Owen, they had to look in the list of "characters at HCC" and not "other characters"? and so on. Some people are organised by families; others are organised by where they study. That makes no sense - in an encyclopedia, all characters should be indexed in the same way. Confusing.
There are too many headings and the page is massive (and if you don't agree with me, Wikipedia do - see the message they give us when we click "edit") Someone has to cut this page down to size. There's a lot of good stuff here (and I wouldn't want to see any of it lost) - but too much of it for just one page. Separate character pages are probably the way to go? Smeddlesboy 14:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
PS Compare with the Neighbours page to see how its managed there. To my mind, that is much clearer to a casual user Smeddlesboy 14:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone please get rid of the separate articles on every character on the show. Everything that can be said about the characters is summarised on this page already.
GeeJo
(t)
(c)
22:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I added them so we can incoperate more data into seprate pages to help keep things cleaner. They were uncomplete so i created a page for each charcter, If you feel it very inconvinient feel free to remove them your self.-- MatthewFenton 12:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
According to this site, she has two other siblings apart from Ali. Is anyone sure this is true and not just vandalism? Were they ever on the show or even mentioned?--This post is from a unregisterd user.
Yes they did have two other siblings a brother and sister (they where shown at Alis funeral)-- Matthew Fenton 15:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, right. How comes no one ever seemed to mention them (which was why I thought it might have been vandalism). —This unsigned comment was added by 80.41.77.88 ( talk • contribs) .
Why is this section completely erased after so many months of being on the page.? These characters are on their way to the show and they are 100% true as per theOfficial site, so what's the deal?
How about you check the official character section on the official Hollyoaks Website. These additions have been known for a few months now. The site even has a Hollyoaks X-TRA about it. It would be great if an editor for a certain show would actually take the time to check out the official site to the show or Inside Soap so that he can get the latest news.
Neither are you bub!!! Check your own facts!!!!
Hello ,,
Why do you choose to ignore the Official website????? If you go there, you will see that the information is correct. Please go to the cast and characterrs section and let me know what you find there. I do not know why you continually take off this section, (especially when you told me above that you would not take it off because of some rule) This information has been known for a few months and there are interviews with the McQUEENS. If it's been confirmed by the official site why do you choose to ignore this. Look at Carmel's first appearance. Please I would like to understand your way of thinking on how to maintain the wikipedia webpage.
It actually says it in the Character sections . Please go directly
Italic text to the cast and character section yourself and you will see profiles for them `Go now!!!!! Then let me know what you think!!!! You know what the address is.
You want me toi cite sources, I told you my source. Listen you twerp, you are supposedly the leader of this webpage and you have to find sources and you yourself will not do research into the very show that you are the leader for. If you want to keep this webpage current a good editor must check their sources. As long as you choose to remove it, I will replace it, as I know I am not doing anything against policy. I can cite sources but i ALREADY CITED VERIFIABLE SOURCES. I am not citing any rumours, just what is stated in the Hollyoaks official website. Geez, there is no getting through to you is there???
Fine I am not trying to attack you I just don't know why you can't keep up to date with the official site, like others do. This section stayed for a while before you did it the first time last week.
http://www.hollyoaks.com/backstage/cast_and_characters.asp
Are you happy now???
Although this issue now looks resolved, I had been asked by Matthew to take a look. My comments are:
The JPS talk to me 20:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it me, or is Hollyoaks in terminal decline, waiting for the axe? Why else would they have a rapist (Sam) escape from prison, take his sister (Nicole) hostage, then burn down the pub to spite his brother (Russ) and ex-girlfriend (Sophie), killing himself along with Sophie, her twin (Mel), and two innocents (Joe and Olivia) and putting the numbnuts in hospital (OB). That's six characters bumped off in the past few weeks if you count the Valentine's mum. That's the biggest wipeout of cast members since the boat explosion on Channel Five soap Family Affairs a few years back (and that itself was axed!). That quite literally lends the term "sinking ship"! User:antster1983 14:11, 9th September 2006
Extreme dramatic events are not a sign of "terminal decline" - look at Emmerdale. They shake up relationships and create opportunities for new characters. Family Affairs was revived by the explosion, and its axing several years later was entirely unrelated. Robina Fox 11:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually,the fire at The Dog was an introdouction to a new writer, and was his way of bringing Hollyoaks into the noughties.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds36822.html
And as always her profile has already been up for a few months now on the Official website :)
Hey can someone help me with the past character page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollyoaks_past_characters
Well, I presume we can now say that magic does indeed exist in Hollyoaks after the episode this week where the real Father Christmas appeared (and disappeared) to win a Max Mission toy for Tom!
It made me laugh, and I did enjoy it, but after this I'm finding it hard to take the soap even remotely seriously! Long live Hollyoaks! Xzamuel 01:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Whats Max short for Maxwell or Maximilian? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanDudd88 ( talk • contribs).
I think he's called Maximilian. Anyway, on Max's page someone has added how he may die. Is this just specualtion or is it actually true?
I have recently done a lot of work on the Coronation Street article so that it actually talks about the programmes instead of listing characters and storylines. I would like to propose a similar thing for this article because it is 69 KB of well...nothing much. Most of the information contained here could or should appear in character profiles. What about the original cast? What about Jambo, Kirk, Maddie and Ruth? Actually all non-present characters are forgotten, which isn't really what a main article should be about. I understand Wikipedia's guidelines on characters in fiction, but what is the point in aimlessly listing characters if a reader is given little or no background? This article as it is assumes a lot of prior knowledge and understanding of the subject, which is what an encyclopedia is not based on. This article needs to present a wider picture of Hollyoaks before it even tries to list characters or what has happened to them. What about the impact the programme has had on British TV? It's fair to say 'Hollyoaks has received numerous awards over the years and raised awareness of issues[...]' but surely it has done more than that? I am more than happy and excited to help contribute to this, but I'd like to know what other Wikipedians think? Surely we can't have a Hollyoaks article that is focused solely on what is happening now? Ben 20:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I've spent a fair amount of time correcting common errors, etc. so I thought I might address a few pointers for those of you who are regular editors of this page:
Redl@nds597198 07:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I've trimmed down a few bits and bobs, as you'll probably see. I understand that earlier discussion about this article (with regard to WP:FICTION) came to the decision that individual character profiles and synopses should be included on this page. I think that the interpretation of the guidlines at WP:FICTION has been uncertain, and this article does not cover the main purpose of WP:FICTION (and Wikipedia for that matter): 'Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance'
This article says more or less nothing about the achievements, impact or historical significane of Hollyoaks, it's merely a dumping ground for new character information, which is generally added after each episode airs. I believe that the only way to go is to have separate character articles to avoid the page ballooning any further. I've trimmed down about 30 kilobytes just by recreating articles for the Osborne-Dean family. I will be working on their profiles over the next couple of weeks, hopefully bringing them to a standard on which the other Hollyoaks character articles can be modelled. It may even be and idea to see if we can develop family articles instead of single character profiles. Ben 22:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well Somone just un alphabetised them. Who ever it is has no user name and has not come forward to give there reasons. It seems to be listed with Tony first and the only thing i can think of is he's listing them in order of how long they been on the show. Seeing as how they don't have a user name we should try and lock the page down so only registed users can modify the page. DanDud88 21:40 16 February 2007 (UTC).
Right I've created most of the character pages, I just need some images to fill them. Especialy the older characters is there no images of the show pre 2000. D.Dudley ( talk) 17:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Are we sure it's the right Wright? I thought it wasn't the DJ guy, but I may be wrong. LeeG 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
it most definitely is NOT the DJ.
duncanrmi ( talk) 19:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Well there seem to be some inconsistencies here, it might take a while to correct all of the differences on all the separate character and other relevant pages, but just to say here, when referring to the actual show, it should be written Hollyoaks and when referring to the village it should be written Hollyoaks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redl@nds597198 ( talk • contribs) 05:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
I need the age orders of The Cunningham children Max, Dawn and Cindy I want to make sure i have them in the right order on the past character list the same with the Morgan children.
Hi, Has this been broadcast yet? If not when is it due to be, and is there a source? Thanks. Chris as I am Chris 17:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
NO POSTING LATE NIGHT EPISODES UNLESS YOU HAVE A SOURCE TO BACK IT UP (sorry about the caps but I want to make my point clear) DandDudd88 22:40 (UTC)
Does anyone know at what point the series will start in the US. i know it says where its at Sam Owens return, so are we to assume it starts with the Dog explosion.-- Irishboi 22:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok so Hollyoaks airs on channel 4 at 6:30 and then the next episode is on e4 at 7. Should the character bios be altered after the e4 show or should we wait till the next day till it air on channel 4?, cos e4 isn't available everywhere -- Irishboi 01:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know all that much about the long-term history of Hollyoaks, as I am a recent viewer. But I have read some articles (a Digital Spy interview with the producer, Bryan Kirkwood) about the show was considered to have been in a decline in the early/mid-00's, until recently. Do you think anyone should write up a history of the show in terms of the major events, how viewers reacted to them, etc.? Since there has been such mention of some of the recent stories, like Clare's reign of terror and the John Paul/Craig storyline, should those be mentioned more?
I was also wondering if you thought any Hollyoaks couples should be given entries into the Supercouples section. I don't see any couples from British soaps there, but I know UK soaps have had their share (like Den and Angie on Eastenders). Since John Paul and Craig ended up being so talked about and a lot of people who aren't even UK residents have followed their story on Youtube, you'd think that would be a supercouple. -- JamesB3 12:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I know that this show is not exactly on the popularity level of Eastenders, but HO does have a number of characters who appear for only a few episodes, or a few weeks. They may not deserve their own individual pages, but maybe we should start a minor character page to put them on? For instance, Nige, the guy Ste takes order from who slept with Michaela. I don't know if we could include characters of recent times who are already gone (like Pete Webster or Simon Crosby), but anyway, this is just an idea, I wanted to hear any opinion you have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesB3 ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Why does the Hollyoaks page still refer to him as Kieron Hobbs? I know that was the original intended name for the character, but (as Hollyoak's office has told me) the name of the character was changed to O'Dowd at the last minute, although unfortunately some listings magazines 9and the Channel 4 website!) don't seem to have got hold of the correction. For someone who has watched all 2253 episodes to date, it is rather fristrating to see that information here when it does not accord with the character or credits to the pisodes themselves. Can anyone enlighten me, please?
88.109.252.160 ( talk) 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Rainbow 13 88.109.252.160 ( talk) 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Father Kieron's page has been removed, yet I think it's again obvious he is a main character, appears in the credits now, plus he has a big storyline playing out onscreen at the moment. Raintheone ( talk) 01:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Would a verifiable source not be the programme credits, which are shown on the telephosion every day (and the monibus edition on Sunday)? I'm coming to the conclusion that the people whomaintain this site don't actually watch the programme! I am not at home until after Easter, but I have there the e-mails referred to: to whom should i forward them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.156.88 ( talk) 16:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
But they don't - do you actually WATCH the programme? I hadn't heard of the name Hobbs until I came onto this site and dicovered the discrepancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.233.156 ( talk) 09:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
KIERON IS NOT A MINOR CHARACTER. HE'S IN THE OPENING AND IS GIVEN A FULL PROFILE ON THE WEBSITE. THERE HAVE BEEN 3 SEPERATE OCCASIONS, ONE OF THEM BEING ME, WHERE PEOPLE EDITED HIS PROFILE TO GIVE HIM A REGULAR PAGE ONLY TO HAVE YOU, THE MODERATOR ERASE IT. ENOUGH ALREADY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.33.144 ( talk) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The show has been described numerous times as a show that teenagers watch to jack off of in the past, should this be mentioned in the article?- SCB '92 ( talk) 19:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This can hardly be considered a balanced article when it contains no criticism whatsoever; even the articles on Eastenders and Coronation Street have that, and they aren't a bunch of models who think that they can act! (IHMO). Maybe a bit OTT, but you get my drift. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.73.54 ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 6 October 2008
The pages on Hollyoaks characters are in bad shape and just reierate the whole plot lines of the characters and fail to bring any notability, knowing myself they are notable work needs to be done so they are not all describing fiction in a primarily in-universe style. I've started one off already(see: Hannah Ashworth) and it is no where near complete but you can kind of guess what they should be aiming for. Detailing the impact the storylines have had on society, articles on the characters from official news sources or perhaps some of the books or magazines that have been published. Eastenders and some Coronation Street articles show how it can be done. Raintheone ( talk) 16:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed for ages now that every new character does not get their own page and instead they are put in 'Minor Characters'. Why is this? The characters are not minor so surely the page should be changed to something else e.g. List of new Hollyoaks characters (2009) and so on. Any minor characters should be moved into a minor page but perhaps newer characters can be relocated to a separate page. Anyone have any thoughts?-- °wɧoɳɪvɛʀsɜ 14:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed all th e praise and desciption about the show is mostly about the recent storyines like JP and Craig and about the recent cast mambers wining awards and stuff. What about the shows early years perticularly 1995-2004. Did the show win any awards for any storylines back then ect. D.Dudley ( talk) 13:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Can someone help me fill in the gaps in the table below please.
Name | Duration | Course |
---|---|---|
Hannah Ashworth | 2008–2009 | n/a |
Josh Ashworth | 2009– | Music |
Amy Barnes | 2009– | GCSE resits |
Mike Barnes | 2008– | English literature |
Elliot Bevan | 2007– | Science & Physics |
Archie Carpenter | 2008– | Sport |
Dave Colburn | 2009– | n/a |
Kris Fisher | 2006- | n/a |
Nancy Hayton | 2008– | n/a |
Lydia Hart | 2009 | Music |
Charlotte Lau | 2009– | Psychology |
India Longford | 2009– | Mathematics |
Michaela McQueen | 2009– | n/a |
Hayley Ramsey | 2009– | n/a |
Zak Ramsey | 2009– | Physical Education |
Leila Roy | 2008– | Art & Philosophy |
Sasha Valentine | 2009– | n/a |
D.Dudley ( talk) 15:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
How about listing all the familys like someones already done with the Cunninghams, McQueens and Ashworths. But if theres more info on one character than the others in the family, say theres little informaiton such as "Character is the younger sibling of Character B and older sibling of Character C" then we put them with the recuring characters list. Such as List of minor Hollyoaks characters (1995-96) D.Dudley ( talk) 14:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The cast list needs a serious reform, perhaps, as mentioned above, categorise the characters into families and branch off from there. Also, there are numerous new actors that have been introduced into the show, so they need a mention and an update.-- ThatBlokeInTheMask ( talk) 19:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Criticism
Revamp
US Broadcasting
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Hollyoaks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.battlefront.co.uk/article/exciting-hollyoaks-exclusive/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hollyoaks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hollyoaks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I removed the refernce to Tony recently being outed as a porn star as it was refered to before ages ago - I remember an episode where the Burton family ended up accidently watching it.
Also, can people avoid referernces to time? There's a reference to 'last week' somewhere in the article and several references to 'new' or 'recent' characters who have been in it for ages now. It makes the article go out of date quicker.
Like it or not, this page is far too long. There seems to be some dispute over whether to include pages for the separate characters or not, but either way - a wikipedia article about Hollyoaks shouldn't contain a full biography on every single character - a complete biography should have a page of its own. Either get rid of my table and reduce the text to a paragraph per family; or keep the text in its long form but keep the table too. You can't find anything on the page as it is
I admit it doesn't fit in well with the current text, but thats partly because the current text is ridiculously long. If its removed at least a past version will be stored in the history for insertion into a future reworded page.
Smeddlesboy 14:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but (ignoring the sarcasm) that's exactly my point. To do that, you need to have some idea of who you're looking for in the first place (i.e. being a fan). As I understand it, that's not the point of Wikipedia - it should be an encyclopedia article that can be read by someone with little or no understanding of the topic. For example, how would a newcomer know that, to find Russell Owen, they had to look in the list of "characters at HCC" and not "other characters"? and so on. Some people are organised by families; others are organised by where they study. That makes no sense - in an encyclopedia, all characters should be indexed in the same way. Confusing.
There are too many headings and the page is massive (and if you don't agree with me, Wikipedia do - see the message they give us when we click "edit") Someone has to cut this page down to size. There's a lot of good stuff here (and I wouldn't want to see any of it lost) - but too much of it for just one page. Separate character pages are probably the way to go? Smeddlesboy 14:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
PS Compare with the Neighbours page to see how its managed there. To my mind, that is much clearer to a casual user Smeddlesboy 14:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone please get rid of the separate articles on every character on the show. Everything that can be said about the characters is summarised on this page already.
GeeJo
(t)
(c)
22:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I added them so we can incoperate more data into seprate pages to help keep things cleaner. They were uncomplete so i created a page for each charcter, If you feel it very inconvinient feel free to remove them your self.-- MatthewFenton 12:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
According to this site, she has two other siblings apart from Ali. Is anyone sure this is true and not just vandalism? Were they ever on the show or even mentioned?--This post is from a unregisterd user.
Yes they did have two other siblings a brother and sister (they where shown at Alis funeral)-- Matthew Fenton 15:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, right. How comes no one ever seemed to mention them (which was why I thought it might have been vandalism). —This unsigned comment was added by 80.41.77.88 ( talk • contribs) .
Why is this section completely erased after so many months of being on the page.? These characters are on their way to the show and they are 100% true as per theOfficial site, so what's the deal?
How about you check the official character section on the official Hollyoaks Website. These additions have been known for a few months now. The site even has a Hollyoaks X-TRA about it. It would be great if an editor for a certain show would actually take the time to check out the official site to the show or Inside Soap so that he can get the latest news.
Neither are you bub!!! Check your own facts!!!!
Hello ,,
Why do you choose to ignore the Official website????? If you go there, you will see that the information is correct. Please go to the cast and characterrs section and let me know what you find there. I do not know why you continually take off this section, (especially when you told me above that you would not take it off because of some rule) This information has been known for a few months and there are interviews with the McQUEENS. If it's been confirmed by the official site why do you choose to ignore this. Look at Carmel's first appearance. Please I would like to understand your way of thinking on how to maintain the wikipedia webpage.
It actually says it in the Character sections . Please go directly
Italic text to the cast and character section yourself and you will see profiles for them `Go now!!!!! Then let me know what you think!!!! You know what the address is.
You want me toi cite sources, I told you my source. Listen you twerp, you are supposedly the leader of this webpage and you have to find sources and you yourself will not do research into the very show that you are the leader for. If you want to keep this webpage current a good editor must check their sources. As long as you choose to remove it, I will replace it, as I know I am not doing anything against policy. I can cite sources but i ALREADY CITED VERIFIABLE SOURCES. I am not citing any rumours, just what is stated in the Hollyoaks official website. Geez, there is no getting through to you is there???
Fine I am not trying to attack you I just don't know why you can't keep up to date with the official site, like others do. This section stayed for a while before you did it the first time last week.
http://www.hollyoaks.com/backstage/cast_and_characters.asp
Are you happy now???
Although this issue now looks resolved, I had been asked by Matthew to take a look. My comments are:
The JPS talk to me 20:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it me, or is Hollyoaks in terminal decline, waiting for the axe? Why else would they have a rapist (Sam) escape from prison, take his sister (Nicole) hostage, then burn down the pub to spite his brother (Russ) and ex-girlfriend (Sophie), killing himself along with Sophie, her twin (Mel), and two innocents (Joe and Olivia) and putting the numbnuts in hospital (OB). That's six characters bumped off in the past few weeks if you count the Valentine's mum. That's the biggest wipeout of cast members since the boat explosion on Channel Five soap Family Affairs a few years back (and that itself was axed!). That quite literally lends the term "sinking ship"! User:antster1983 14:11, 9th September 2006
Extreme dramatic events are not a sign of "terminal decline" - look at Emmerdale. They shake up relationships and create opportunities for new characters. Family Affairs was revived by the explosion, and its axing several years later was entirely unrelated. Robina Fox 11:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually,the fire at The Dog was an introdouction to a new writer, and was his way of bringing Hollyoaks into the noughties.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds36822.html
And as always her profile has already been up for a few months now on the Official website :)
Hey can someone help me with the past character page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollyoaks_past_characters
Well, I presume we can now say that magic does indeed exist in Hollyoaks after the episode this week where the real Father Christmas appeared (and disappeared) to win a Max Mission toy for Tom!
It made me laugh, and I did enjoy it, but after this I'm finding it hard to take the soap even remotely seriously! Long live Hollyoaks! Xzamuel 01:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Whats Max short for Maxwell or Maximilian? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanDudd88 ( talk • contribs).
I think he's called Maximilian. Anyway, on Max's page someone has added how he may die. Is this just specualtion or is it actually true?
I have recently done a lot of work on the Coronation Street article so that it actually talks about the programmes instead of listing characters and storylines. I would like to propose a similar thing for this article because it is 69 KB of well...nothing much. Most of the information contained here could or should appear in character profiles. What about the original cast? What about Jambo, Kirk, Maddie and Ruth? Actually all non-present characters are forgotten, which isn't really what a main article should be about. I understand Wikipedia's guidelines on characters in fiction, but what is the point in aimlessly listing characters if a reader is given little or no background? This article as it is assumes a lot of prior knowledge and understanding of the subject, which is what an encyclopedia is not based on. This article needs to present a wider picture of Hollyoaks before it even tries to list characters or what has happened to them. What about the impact the programme has had on British TV? It's fair to say 'Hollyoaks has received numerous awards over the years and raised awareness of issues[...]' but surely it has done more than that? I am more than happy and excited to help contribute to this, but I'd like to know what other Wikipedians think? Surely we can't have a Hollyoaks article that is focused solely on what is happening now? Ben 20:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I've spent a fair amount of time correcting common errors, etc. so I thought I might address a few pointers for those of you who are regular editors of this page:
Redl@nds597198 07:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I've trimmed down a few bits and bobs, as you'll probably see. I understand that earlier discussion about this article (with regard to WP:FICTION) came to the decision that individual character profiles and synopses should be included on this page. I think that the interpretation of the guidlines at WP:FICTION has been uncertain, and this article does not cover the main purpose of WP:FICTION (and Wikipedia for that matter): 'Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance'
This article says more or less nothing about the achievements, impact or historical significane of Hollyoaks, it's merely a dumping ground for new character information, which is generally added after each episode airs. I believe that the only way to go is to have separate character articles to avoid the page ballooning any further. I've trimmed down about 30 kilobytes just by recreating articles for the Osborne-Dean family. I will be working on their profiles over the next couple of weeks, hopefully bringing them to a standard on which the other Hollyoaks character articles can be modelled. It may even be and idea to see if we can develop family articles instead of single character profiles. Ben 22:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well Somone just un alphabetised them. Who ever it is has no user name and has not come forward to give there reasons. It seems to be listed with Tony first and the only thing i can think of is he's listing them in order of how long they been on the show. Seeing as how they don't have a user name we should try and lock the page down so only registed users can modify the page. DanDud88 21:40 16 February 2007 (UTC).
Right I've created most of the character pages, I just need some images to fill them. Especialy the older characters is there no images of the show pre 2000. D.Dudley ( talk) 17:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Are we sure it's the right Wright? I thought it wasn't the DJ guy, but I may be wrong. LeeG 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
it most definitely is NOT the DJ.
duncanrmi ( talk) 19:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Well there seem to be some inconsistencies here, it might take a while to correct all of the differences on all the separate character and other relevant pages, but just to say here, when referring to the actual show, it should be written Hollyoaks and when referring to the village it should be written Hollyoaks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redl@nds597198 ( talk • contribs) 05:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
I need the age orders of The Cunningham children Max, Dawn and Cindy I want to make sure i have them in the right order on the past character list the same with the Morgan children.
Hi, Has this been broadcast yet? If not when is it due to be, and is there a source? Thanks. Chris as I am Chris 17:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
NO POSTING LATE NIGHT EPISODES UNLESS YOU HAVE A SOURCE TO BACK IT UP (sorry about the caps but I want to make my point clear) DandDudd88 22:40 (UTC)
Does anyone know at what point the series will start in the US. i know it says where its at Sam Owens return, so are we to assume it starts with the Dog explosion.-- Irishboi 22:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok so Hollyoaks airs on channel 4 at 6:30 and then the next episode is on e4 at 7. Should the character bios be altered after the e4 show or should we wait till the next day till it air on channel 4?, cos e4 isn't available everywhere -- Irishboi 01:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know all that much about the long-term history of Hollyoaks, as I am a recent viewer. But I have read some articles (a Digital Spy interview with the producer, Bryan Kirkwood) about the show was considered to have been in a decline in the early/mid-00's, until recently. Do you think anyone should write up a history of the show in terms of the major events, how viewers reacted to them, etc.? Since there has been such mention of some of the recent stories, like Clare's reign of terror and the John Paul/Craig storyline, should those be mentioned more?
I was also wondering if you thought any Hollyoaks couples should be given entries into the Supercouples section. I don't see any couples from British soaps there, but I know UK soaps have had their share (like Den and Angie on Eastenders). Since John Paul and Craig ended up being so talked about and a lot of people who aren't even UK residents have followed their story on Youtube, you'd think that would be a supercouple. -- JamesB3 12:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I know that this show is not exactly on the popularity level of Eastenders, but HO does have a number of characters who appear for only a few episodes, or a few weeks. They may not deserve their own individual pages, but maybe we should start a minor character page to put them on? For instance, Nige, the guy Ste takes order from who slept with Michaela. I don't know if we could include characters of recent times who are already gone (like Pete Webster or Simon Crosby), but anyway, this is just an idea, I wanted to hear any opinion you have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesB3 ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Why does the Hollyoaks page still refer to him as Kieron Hobbs? I know that was the original intended name for the character, but (as Hollyoak's office has told me) the name of the character was changed to O'Dowd at the last minute, although unfortunately some listings magazines 9and the Channel 4 website!) don't seem to have got hold of the correction. For someone who has watched all 2253 episodes to date, it is rather fristrating to see that information here when it does not accord with the character or credits to the pisodes themselves. Can anyone enlighten me, please?
88.109.252.160 ( talk) 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Rainbow 13 88.109.252.160 ( talk) 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Father Kieron's page has been removed, yet I think it's again obvious he is a main character, appears in the credits now, plus he has a big storyline playing out onscreen at the moment. Raintheone ( talk) 01:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Would a verifiable source not be the programme credits, which are shown on the telephosion every day (and the monibus edition on Sunday)? I'm coming to the conclusion that the people whomaintain this site don't actually watch the programme! I am not at home until after Easter, but I have there the e-mails referred to: to whom should i forward them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.156.88 ( talk) 16:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
But they don't - do you actually WATCH the programme? I hadn't heard of the name Hobbs until I came onto this site and dicovered the discrepancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.233.156 ( talk) 09:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
KIERON IS NOT A MINOR CHARACTER. HE'S IN THE OPENING AND IS GIVEN A FULL PROFILE ON THE WEBSITE. THERE HAVE BEEN 3 SEPERATE OCCASIONS, ONE OF THEM BEING ME, WHERE PEOPLE EDITED HIS PROFILE TO GIVE HIM A REGULAR PAGE ONLY TO HAVE YOU, THE MODERATOR ERASE IT. ENOUGH ALREADY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.33.144 ( talk) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The show has been described numerous times as a show that teenagers watch to jack off of in the past, should this be mentioned in the article?- SCB '92 ( talk) 19:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This can hardly be considered a balanced article when it contains no criticism whatsoever; even the articles on Eastenders and Coronation Street have that, and they aren't a bunch of models who think that they can act! (IHMO). Maybe a bit OTT, but you get my drift. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.73.54 ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 6 October 2008
The pages on Hollyoaks characters are in bad shape and just reierate the whole plot lines of the characters and fail to bring any notability, knowing myself they are notable work needs to be done so they are not all describing fiction in a primarily in-universe style. I've started one off already(see: Hannah Ashworth) and it is no where near complete but you can kind of guess what they should be aiming for. Detailing the impact the storylines have had on society, articles on the characters from official news sources or perhaps some of the books or magazines that have been published. Eastenders and some Coronation Street articles show how it can be done. Raintheone ( talk) 16:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed for ages now that every new character does not get their own page and instead they are put in 'Minor Characters'. Why is this? The characters are not minor so surely the page should be changed to something else e.g. List of new Hollyoaks characters (2009) and so on. Any minor characters should be moved into a minor page but perhaps newer characters can be relocated to a separate page. Anyone have any thoughts?-- °wɧoɳɪvɛʀsɜ 14:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed all th e praise and desciption about the show is mostly about the recent storyines like JP and Craig and about the recent cast mambers wining awards and stuff. What about the shows early years perticularly 1995-2004. Did the show win any awards for any storylines back then ect. D.Dudley ( talk) 13:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Can someone help me fill in the gaps in the table below please.
Name | Duration | Course |
---|---|---|
Hannah Ashworth | 2008–2009 | n/a |
Josh Ashworth | 2009– | Music |
Amy Barnes | 2009– | GCSE resits |
Mike Barnes | 2008– | English literature |
Elliot Bevan | 2007– | Science & Physics |
Archie Carpenter | 2008– | Sport |
Dave Colburn | 2009– | n/a |
Kris Fisher | 2006- | n/a |
Nancy Hayton | 2008– | n/a |
Lydia Hart | 2009 | Music |
Charlotte Lau | 2009– | Psychology |
India Longford | 2009– | Mathematics |
Michaela McQueen | 2009– | n/a |
Hayley Ramsey | 2009– | n/a |
Zak Ramsey | 2009– | Physical Education |
Leila Roy | 2008– | Art & Philosophy |
Sasha Valentine | 2009– | n/a |
D.Dudley ( talk) 15:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
How about listing all the familys like someones already done with the Cunninghams, McQueens and Ashworths. But if theres more info on one character than the others in the family, say theres little informaiton such as "Character is the younger sibling of Character B and older sibling of Character C" then we put them with the recuring characters list. Such as List of minor Hollyoaks characters (1995-96) D.Dudley ( talk) 14:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The cast list needs a serious reform, perhaps, as mentioned above, categorise the characters into families and branch off from there. Also, there are numerous new actors that have been introduced into the show, so they need a mention and an update.-- ThatBlokeInTheMask ( talk) 19:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Criticism
Revamp
US Broadcasting
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Hollyoaks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.battlefront.co.uk/article/exciting-hollyoaks-exclusive/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hollyoaks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hollyoaks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)