Talk:List of Hollyoaks characters introduced in 2009

Give Natty his own page

i say that Natty gets his own page due to him haveing a main part in the C4 sope Hollyoaks.

We can't just create a page for him. There are probably no sources or anything for him, plus he is not really a major character. W93 (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

well i think he should he as been a cast member since Februry 2009 so at least give him his own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.87.22 (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Even i think that Natty should get his own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheep 2009 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, there are no sources. We can't just create a page for him because two people think he should have one, it's all about whether he is notable or not, which, within the WikiProject, he is not. See Wikipedia:Starting an article. W93 (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Globalize Tag

It should be clear to all english speaking persons what the list is referring to without clicking on the wikilinks. The list doesn't state what media the characters appear in. I don't know anything about the show or the characters and after reading the header of this list I should. Please write the intro in a way that can make sense to a global audience.--Adam in MO Talk 13:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Character's own pages

I have taken a note of 2008 "minor" characters who I believe deserve their own pages. These characters have all had/have storylines:

• Ravi Roy
• Leila Roy
• Anita Roy (see below)
• Ash Roy
• Theresa McQueen (see below)
• Spencer
• Natty

Other characters who may have their own pages, although they could be arguable:

• Archie Carpenter
• Bel Roy
• Govinda Roy

Bel and Govinda may only appear minor but Suzanne Ashworth and Neville Ashworth get their own pages despite being seen little on-screen. I have linked the characters above although all except Govinda are linked directly to the minor characters page. Please reply if you disagree; thinking of good reasons why they should not have a page or if you think any other character should be given a page.

• Just to note I have made Theresa and Anita's pages. I added new information on storylines etc. and also character creation. Please do not remove these to minor characters - they are not minor characters! Anyway if anyone plans to create any, do not create theirs, because they have already been made. Whoniverse93 talk? 23:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I already replied to a previous request for a reason why they didn't have their own pages - Talk:List of characters from Hollyoaks#Recurring Characters (2009). ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 16:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes but now I think these should have their own pages. I have created Theresa and Anita's. I just think if Nev and Suzanne Ashworth get pages, when they are at least recurring, then so should the above. Nev and Suzanne do not have any specific character storylines, they only have involvement in their children's usually, as for the above: Ravi is currently involved in a storyline (cerebral aneurysm) and also his bisexual storyline, Ash has been involved in a racial storyline with Gaz Bennett and also jealousy over Justin Burton and Hannah Ashworth, Leila is currently in a pregnancy storyline as well as her arrival and "keeping her college course from her parents", Theresa has been involved in a storyline accusing Tony Hutchinson of sleeping with a child and now her and Newt's fling, Anita has went through getting used by Newt and Lauren Valentine, going out with Newt, bullying and self-harming, pretending to be Theresa on-line and meeting an on-line boyfriend, Spencer has not had a main storyline but involved in Warren Fox's storylines. Archie has not had a storyline himself but has been the cause of some, e.g. Zoe's film trouble and plagiarism. Bel and Govinda are in the same state as Nev and Suzanne - they are involved in their children's storylines. Therefore I believe these are good enough reasons to make them pages besides, the minor characters pages will become too crowded and long with the storylines of these so-called "minor" characters. Whoniverse93 talk? 22:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A consultation of WP:SOAPS#Style guidelines shows that the storylines should be a maximum of 1000 words.Therefore, we should not be listing every story line that person has been involved in (a reason why the pages are becoming crowded). While assuming good faith here, you can't really just decide to go and create lots of new pages for characters. The "other stuff exists" argument isn't valid here either. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 22:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am starting to understand that more and starting to agree. Perhaps all character pages should be modelled on character pages from EastEnders. These pages show a very high standard, unlike Hollyoaks's pages which are always edited by vandals. Whoniverse93 talk? 22:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not assume bad faith here. While there have been instances of vandals editing the Hollyoaks character pages, I'm sure that most of them are well-meaning edits. I don't think it is a bad idea to model the way it is done for Hollyoaks on the way EastEnders has done it. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 07:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources

[1][2] - Daniel and Abi reception.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 16:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)