Talk:List of Emmerdale characters

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Meena (talk | contribs) at 14:20, 31 March 2021 (-). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:20, 31 March 2021 by Meena (talk | contribs) (-)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Television: Emmerdale High‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Emmerdale task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Soap Operas

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Alan Turner

Ok lets get something straight here,Alan did not leave the cast so he should be included in the present characters not the returning characters,Richard Thorp only took sick leave which isnt a offical departure from a soap,so please keep him in the present characters,Thank you Brianwazere 17:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You will need to provide a source to back your claim up. Ooh, Fruity (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes i can

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s12/emmerdale/news/a208143/richard-thorp-returns-to-dales-filming.html This is prove that he was only on sick leave Brianwazere 21:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing why he left, all I'm saying is that the article clearly states "He is due to return to screens in six weeks time" i.e. not present at this time. Ooh, Fruity (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Right since i dont usualy edit emmerdale articles im gonna let however does decide wether dats you or someone else:) Brianwazere 22:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

didnt he go off touring with a friend? there must be some story line to temp wrie him off the screen cause we havent seen him for months! Bankhallbretherton (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes but what im saying is it wasn't an offical departure he only took leave for an operation he didnt actually leave the cast Brianwazere 13:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have taken out the 1982-2009,2010-present and rectified it to 1982-present on the character list. Richard Thorp only took sick leave and Alan went travelling in the show so that does NOT count as an official departure for the actor or character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benny1982 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but please use an edit summary next time. - JuneGloom Talk 20:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Alan was offscreen for at least nine months, covering the end of 2009 to the start of 2010. He was noticeably absent from the show so I believe that his absence should be taken into consideration and have the duration recorded as it initially was the: 1982-2009, 2010-82.38.41.198 (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You obviously cannot grasp broad duration. Hardly a hard concept. I find it funny how you come waltzing in and changing everything like your Queen of wikipedia. You are not the voice of the whole project so do not change then tell us we are wrong, start a discussion with the aim of change.RaintheOne 19:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I prefer King of Misplaced Pages seeing as I am male but that's neither here nor there. As I explained on the Coronation Street page, I do not see the point of this "Broad Duration". Alan Turner was noticeably absent from the show for a period of at least ten months between June 2009 and April 2010 so I could not understand why it was changed. It seemed OK before but this "Broad Duration" seems inaccurate and therefore makes it look like Misplaced Pages is not doing it's job properly which is to record accurate information.82.38.41.198 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, King of Misplaced Pages, I am sorry. However, while I understand your concern, I do not agree with your over exaggerations about wikipedia "not doing it's job properly" - we are just simply stating Alan continued to appear each year - which he did. Small breaks regardless, he was not out of the serial for more than a calender year. It is not our duty to provide a comprehsive cover in the infobox - as it is meant to be a quick run through of the elements of the subject. If a reader is so concerned over Alan's duration, they can look to the article's text to explain further.RaintheOne 16:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The actor took a break from the show, he did not depart. Therefore the date should remain 1982– . - JuneGloom Talk 16:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

He took a break but it was a long break of at least 10 months. Covering the end of 2009 and the start of 2010 which is why I changed it back. Alan was taken off the characters list and Eric Pollard was the first one on the list. Alan was put into the category of returning characters so as a result of this IMO the date should have stayed at 1982-2009, 2010- because it seems more accurate to what actually happened.82.38.41.198 (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

P.s. I am not saying you are all wrong, RaintheOne. The rest of the characters list is fine by my opinion and I think that whoever compiled it did a good job. It is just with Alan that it seems a bit shaky.82.38.41.198 (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

this seems to be a general problem in all articles on soap characters... I think that it is correct to have it written like that as it shows when the character's actor had a break and was off screen but if they where just in the background and not seen on camera then i suppose they could be classed as not present and taking a break, its like Rosie webster in corrie, she hasnt been seen recently but isnt out of the soap... weird i know how she cannot be seen then re appear again. This way of recording the characters durations needs to have a final decision and applied to all soap articles of this type and kept to to prevent further problems and disagreements! JMRH6 (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with your statement. In Corrie, Rosie Webster was absent for a period of four months whilst Helen Flanagan took a break from the show but the point is, she left and returned the same year. She was not taken off the cast list but she was included in the returning characters category until she came back. Alan left one year: 2009, was absent for at least ten months and came back the following year: 2010. He was not on the cast list during that time, Eric Pollard was the first one on the list and Alan was in the returning characters category until he returned and was put back on the list. I also noticed how both the durations for Katie Sugden and Laurel Thomas had been altered as well despite the fact that both actresses Sammy Winward and Charlotte Bellamy took considerable time off for maternity leave, both leaving one year: 2005 for Winward and 2009 for Bellamy, and returning the next: 2006 for Winward and 2010 for Bellamy. On both character profiles it lists the producers at the time as introducing them both back into the show.82.38.41.198 (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Turners 8 months away was NOT AN OFFICIAL DEPARTURE. At the time his name never was taken off the character list. 82 you do seem to dislike any opinions that counter yours. I shall change it back to 1982-present. He was offscreen in early 2008 for 5 months and that does not count. Alan has been a continuous character since 1982 and that should be stated. I shall change it back to 1982- if you want to make something of it 82.02020 whatever your name is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benny1982 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, 82.38.41.198 has been blocked as a sockpuppet. - JuneGloom Talk 11:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I need to add a summary thought of the edit. I shall keep changing it back to 1982- if it is changed back to 1982-2009,2010-. 1982-presnet is correct. Sick leave is not a departure from the soap and I think 82 added Turner to the returning charcters himself and is using his own actions to "attempt" to reiterate his comments and "think" he is right in what he says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benny1982 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, please keep WP:EDITWARRING in mind. If an edit war does break out, I will not hesitate to get the article protected and the editors involved blocked. - JuneGloom Talk 19:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody know when exactly Alan's last onscreen appearance before his 2008 absence occurred? Was it in 2007 or 2008 and was his exit on or offscreen? I didn't watch the show at the time so can anyone please enlighten me?82.38.49.218 (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If his last onscreen appearance before his 2008 absence was in 2007 then perhaps you could write the duration as 1982-2007, 2008-2009, 2010- so it is included. If his last appearance before his absence was in 2008 then fair enough I agree with you, keep it as it is.82.38.49.218 (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully the admin will not take heed of your "suggestions". It should remain 1982-.Benny1982 (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Who says? You?82.38.49.218 (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Rachel Breckle

Rachel Breckle - Can someone create her a main page for the actress. I noticed that she has been in lots of theatre so she is now 'noteworthy'. I would write it myself ut I don't know how. There are loads of links on Digital Spy and Internet movie Databse. Thanks

Amy's Baby

The baby needs adding to the list... agree or disagree? JMRH6 (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but does it have a name yet? - JuneGloom Talk 00:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah "Amy's Baby"! haha, seriously no it doesnt but i think Amy's Baby will do for now on the list! ;) JMRH6 (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

According to Chelsea Halfpenny, the baby will be called Kyle. - JuneGloom Talk 12:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Young kids V Recurring characters

I have thought for a long time, that all the young kids that are in the show shouldnt be classed as recurring characters as that is not what they strictly are. They are all supposed to be in the village practically all the time with their parents and the reason they dont get that much screen-time is because there are strict rules for the child actors about the amount of hours they can work and also, there's just not that much you can do with pre-pubertal children, eg they cant have independent adult-like conversations with each other away from their parents in the same way that older children such as Belle and Sean can (plus ..er.. something more developing there which should be exciting!), so they cant have their own storylines-they are only used to be seen with their parents and to add to the family dimension of storylines eg Gabby recently and Laurel citing her as a reason to stay with Ashley as she wouldnt get custody of her if they split, not being her natural mother (allthough Gabby will be 11 next year so shouldnt be too long before we start to see her maturing into a character in her own right. And that is what real-life kids do at that age by starting to have their own strong opinions etc and its the same for the soap kids. So a clear distinction can be made-since Gabby is still written for like Sarah rather than Belle then she needs to stay in this category of young kids that I am talking about. btw I wonder if we will see an actress change when the writers do decide to bring on adolescence in Gabby, like they often do, most recently for Victoria Sugden's coming of age in 2006, which was a successfull change as Isobel Hodgins continues to be a great Victoria; sometimes they leave the re-cast too late however, like with Robert Sugden who was allready a teenager and involved in some heavy stories and I think being played well at the time by Christopher Smith. That's not to say I dont think Karl Davies also did a good job. He continued to play a likeable Robert for the next few years. Anyway, appoligies if Im getting off-topic).

So, of all the characters in Emmerdale at the present time, we can divide them into all the main ones, and, the ones who were in the recurring section which I have now named to Young Child Characters as that is what they all are. And as I have just explained that is a distinctive class of characters that will always be in the show-there will always be little kids living with their parents more often mentioned than seen and only really brought out when it suits the script-writers. And thats good-it keeps a sense of reality and family-life. And the new title much more clearly explains what they are. Now, from time to time, a third class of characters who do actualy 'recur' crop up; these would be ones that dont live in the village (at least permanently) or there's something about their situation which suggests they are not going to become part of the scenery, just a couple of examples from this year would be Jerry Walsh and Dan Spencer-while they were in it they were recurring and I am sure they were listed as such on this article. But it's better to keep them separate from the ones who arent really recurring-the young kids cos they are not going anywhere even if theyre not seen much. They are a constant type of character so they deserve to have their own section. And when we next have an adult recurring character we can just create the recurring table again. But please can we keep this table with this name. Hopefully, no-one will disagree with what I am saying here or feel the need to change it back -because what would be the need? It does no harm to keep these characters in this table and create a separate recurring table as and when needed and it makes things a lot more clearer, clean and constant and the article generally better imo. Nocrowx (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think basically everything you said had it's valid points - but it is original research. Are there any sources to support some of the claims? Just because a character is going to be around for years, does not make them a regular. Some regular characters last a few months and are axed, they were still in the regular cast. These are recurring young characters at best - I get what you mean about Sean but is he classed as a regular by Emmerdale? I don't know that.. must be something on the net about that. However, with the title change, in my opinion, is a bad idea. You probably should have talked about it before changing it... So per your edit summary in which you state "pretty sad that some folk are so impatient" - I couldn't agree more.RaintheOne 07:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The section should be called recurring characters. I hate to say it, because it sounds OTHERSTUFFish, but I think the headings should be in keeping with all the other soap opera character lists. Oh, and what happens when an adult joins the cast in a recurring role? The name will be incorrect, therefore it would have to be changed. Keeping it as recurring characters avoids that change. - JuneGloom Talk 16:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

JG - What do you think about Sean? What is he best listed as, given the sources etc?RaintheOne 16:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, tricky. Though I think because he's a teen with a potential for his own storylines, then listing him as a regular wouldn't be incorrect. We can't really go by the website as they have profiles for almost every character including Sarah and Amelia. I'll check Inside Soap and see if they list him in the cast lists. - JuneGloom Talk 16:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. :)RaintheOne 17:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

JuneGloom, if you had read properly what I put above, I allready explained about adults-if a new adult character comes in who is recurring then the recurring table can be created again, simple. There would be nothing wrong with having a Young Child Characters table and a recurring table. I mean, whats the point of bunching everyone together? If we can make things clearer by separating the characters into well-defined groups; Main, Young Children and Recurring then why not, whats the harm? You see, I have merely added something-dont think of it as a name change. The recurring table can still exist but only when needed and it will be easier to see a recurring adult without having to find them in the middle of all the kids names that are always there. The fact is, the kids arent recurring because they are as regular characters as the adults in the main list because they 'always exist' in the fictional universe of Emmerdale. But that doesnt mean they should go in the main list either because they dont have their own storylines etc. They arent main or recurring, but they are a feature of the soap and they need to go somewhere which is why I created their own table for them, which they deserve. So, for me its a no-brainer: if your an adult or kid always in the village and/or with sufficient screen-time and with your own storylines or heavy speaking inolvement in storylines, your a main character, if your the child of one of those characters, your a Young Child Character, and if your an adult or child who only visits the village from time to time and is not a mainstay of the soap (eg Jerry and Josh Walsh) then you are a recurring character. I hope I have explained more clearly now, and that people understand where Im coming from. And as for Sean, he fits my first of the three decriptions, just like Belle so is definately a main character too. Nocrowx (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide sources to support they are regular cast members?RaintheOne 02:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No, because as far as I am aware, ITV dont publicise any distinctions that they make between the soap's characters. For example, as mentioned earlier in the discussion all the characters have generic profiles on the website. This isnt about adding facts that need to be referenced-its about the layout of the article, which I believe is most user-friendly to Wikipedians and Emmerdale fans having these three tables to divide the characters up using the criteria that I have described above. You dont need references to change an articles layout, and if the criteria for the layout is consistent and accurate according to what general type of character each is, (bearing in mind that its not POV when indirect references which describe the character and their situation, such as the website profiles, can be attributed and mostly allready exist for the purpose of justifiying the characters' inclusion in the article at all) then that makes it fairer. Nocrowx (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"It doesn't do any harm" is not a valid argument. Frankly, having the young child characters table and a separate recurring characters table is ridiculous. But I have a million and one better things to be doing than arguing about them at the moment. Details about the characters belong in the yearly cast lists, so I've moved Jude's storyine and ref to the 2011 cast list. We also don't need an explanation of each section above the table, since the headings do that (though if you want to explain what the list is about, expanding the lead would be good). I don't think the section headings needed changing at all and you should note changing the names affects a lot of links in the articles. - JuneGloom Talk 14:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've put the list back to old format. Nowcrowx - it is becoming disruptive - seeings you added extra information about a character to the list. Why do that? The only issue here is that babies being listed as recurring characters - does not sit well with you - however no valid reasoning - inline with Misplaced Pages's policies, no vaild sources offered to support your reason for change - and only your point of view on which characters you think will fit into each category. It will cause more problems in the long run when everyone's point of view is waved around in the list. So at the end of the day you will need sources saying "These are regular characters". The bottom line is that this is all a extremely trivial matter.RaintheOne 14:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Young children are not classed as regulars especially the babies and toddlers. The only children on the cast I would class as regulars are Belle and Sean, maybe Amelia Spencer too. But the rest-arent recurring - but semi-regular. Seperating the recurring adult characters from child characters is too confusing, I think its best left the way it is. 92.25.97.192 (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Charity Tate -> Sharma_Sharma-2012-02-04T16:22:00.000Z">

Shouldnt her name now be changed to Sharma as she is now married to Jai? JMRH6 (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)_Sharma"> _Sharma">

It is fine as Tate, we go by WP:COMMONNAME. Hope that helps. :)Rain the 1 16:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I know that but on the character list she can be changed to sharma but the main page it links to stays as her maiden name (or at least should do) so techically it should stay as Dingle and shouldnt have reached Tate, have a look at Tracy MacDonald on List of Coronation Street characters as an example. JMRH6 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)_Sharma"> _Sharma">

Charity's second name was Dingle for one year, the rest of the time it has been Tate. A source check would need to be carried out to determine a common name between Dingle and Tate. There is no need to pipe link the name in this list, if her common name is either of those. It certainly is not Sharma though. I looked at Tracy and the list - she is listed as Tracy Barlow; which is correct.Rain the 1 17:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

when i looked recently it did actually say her name was Macdonald. Because Charity has married whos to say that she wont be Sharma for another 15 years? this would over ride the name tate then surely? this is why i think that they should change but the link to the main page should remain the person's maiden name. so it should read Charity Sharma (look at that in edit version) what is the problem with doing this if it read correctly? JMRH6 (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Also looking at it... Val Pollard, Laurel Thomas, Viv Hope all have previous surnames for a lenghty time before what they are listed as now... Lisa Dingle nee Clegg (but i know that was a long time ago... see what i mean though, in 10 years time will that be when we finally decide to change Chairty Tate to Charity Sharma? JMRH6 (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)_Sharma"> _Sharma">

It does not matter at this time; whether the series keep that surname for another ten years is irrelevant to the situation right now. It will not change the fact Sharma is not the character's common name. Plus we do not have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. As for Val, Viv, Laurel - that is WP:OTHERSTUFF and shouldn't be used to determine any changes in this case. This is because the circumstances may be different. For one thing I do know, that until a recent alert put out to a number of editors at WP:SOAPS - Emmerdale on Misplaced Pages has been basically untouched from constructive editing. So it can be expected to find quite a few issues with the majority of the other articles.Rain the 1 19:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont use all them WP:stuff as i just come on here to state facts and reference them when i can. I was using the other characters as examples that after at least 4 years for some they have had the change in the name so i guess that the time frame (if charity sticks with Jai) will be the same and she will hopefully one day become sharma. Even if the soap credits her as Charity Sharma does this mean that it wont be changed? I dont understand "What the situation is right now" as i didnt realise there was a problem. The only problem being is that the character name on the Emmerdale Character list does not match the character's current name in the soap which is my concern. wether it is a new name or not it is irrelevant that is fact of what she is called now. (I also suggest you take a look at Tracy Barlow's page as she has been changed to Macdonald by somone! (just out of interest what is the difference with her and charity? JMRH6 (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Betty and Pearl

wasnt it said that they had both gone off on holiday somewhere? just that we havent seen them in some time...? JMRH6 (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The actors are probably on an extended break. There hasn't been anything around saying they have departed the show for good. - JuneGloom Talk 22:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Amelia Spencer

Surely she is a regular as she is in it quite a lot and considering her dad's main storyline at present and we have seen more of her recently than her brother I think that she should be moved to regular as she has been involved with the current main storyline JMRH6 (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Is she really a regular character like Debbie, Chas, Ashley etc? Personally, I don't think so. Has she had her own storylines that centred specifically around her, instead of appearing in other character's? Also, do we have a source to state that she is a regular cast member? - JuneGloom Talk 15:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Durations etc

This is just a short post to accompany some minor changes I attempted to make previously to neaten up the article, but were changed back without any meaningfull reason other than 'same-ness'-It's all pretty trivial, but main changes I made: It's just resolving a long-standing thing on this article where there are mix-mash durations that goodness knows who put them there in the very first place as they are not backed up by refs., and the thing is that it just doesnt make sense to say a character appeared, eg '-2013, 2013-', even if they DID make an official departure that wasnt originally intended to be only temporary (which would hardly happen anyway; Nicola circa 2006 was mentioned in edits). And the issue has certainly been alluded to in the past and in fact in the Alan Turner section at top of this talk page there was consensus for the principle of what I have now done-In summary, if a character appears in a callendar year then there is no need to break the continuity eg. 2004-2010 unless they didnt appear at all in one of those years.Nocrowx (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I should add there is a clear exception for Priya, as when she returned in 2011, she was played by a different actress than in 2010 (And I know the kid actors have changed, but they always reguarly do). So Priya is a special case in which showing '2009-2010, 2011-' is acceptable. Nocrowx (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

So you are the self-appointed arbiter of the list(s)? Just because the WP:EE made a rule about calender year durations does not mean everyone follows suit. We can have the discussion about it, sure. But that is the only project I was aware with the rule. I agree that temporary departures and maternity leave where the character is still part of the show in terms of planning and storylining does not justify a break in duration. Priya could be the exception to a rule, but you alone decided that she is a "special case". Is this fair on other editors?Rain the 1 01:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, as I said, Priya is the only adult character that has came back played by a different actor isnt she? And can you please be more careful when you edit, because as I said in the talk summaries when I cleaned up after you a bit, you left headings with nothing under them, moving characters from where they had been for a while, including which I have also just noticed but dont at the moment have time to rectify, most seriously the character of Luke has been completely removed and he first appeared on New Year's Eve and continues to recur! I think these things must be unintended consequences; it seems as if when you tried to undo my edit with the duration changes you put the article back to a state that existed some time at the end of last year! And back to the discussion about my recent change-why were the comments in brackets unnesecary? Thomas is the only character on the entire page who now takes up two lines, due to the number of years he has guest-starred, which I just dont think is really fair to the other characters and so to save space and make it look much neater, is why I had put it so it showed that he recurred during 2004-2010 before he re-appeared last year with the latest actor, and also to emphasise that his current appearances since his Father's funeral are more of a mature storyline nature, than all the previous 'kid visiting Dad' ones. I also added notes to Jai and Diane's main cast list to signify there that they are temp. absent, and to avoid the contradiction of the returning table showing them, but also the PRESENT cast table, but as I say you ended up getting read of the returning table (though you left the heading) and so at the moment people wont know at all that they arent currently in the show! So, to summarise I will add Luke and the returnee table back in as soon as I get a chance if someone doesnt already do so, and I hope we can reach agreement about the durations, including bracketed comments, as I think the changes I made in the respect, were simpler, fairer and made much more sense; It was something I have always had a problem with on this article, esp. when, I refer again, to the discussion at top of this very page about Turner where the consensus in his case was that a temp. departure did not need to be shown, so why is everyone else different? IMO neatening everyone else's durations is a trivial thing that should have been done ages ago. Nocrowx (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I reverted it all because it was messy with wrong dates, comments in brackets and POV issues. One cast detail vs messy list of inacuracies. I found the greater good - call it utilitarianism. But as expected you have made several changes once again. This is why I will not have a discussion - as seen from previous encounters you carry on regardless of what anyone else thinks. All of the suggestions above are drawn out in the trivial details of characters goings ons. You take it upon yourself to change Thomas' duration without discussing it. Alan is a different case, one discussed and a consensus formed. Why do we need comments in brackets? What is more fair and simple? This is a list not real living things. We do not have to be fair to each row of text!?!Rain the 1 10:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the point of a duration to show when a character appeared onscreen? It seems to be contradicting the objective of the list.92.232.245.253 (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Recurring section

An editor keeps changing the name to Children Characters and has swapped recurring for regular. They are not regulars. ThisIsDanny (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Mandy

How come Mandy is on the current cast list when she is on the former cast list as she has now left? Surely she can only be on one list. WestMidlandsboy2000 (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Until any further notice, Mandy has gone again, so should be on the list of past characters. Soaper1234 - talk 21:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so shall I remove her from this list then? WestMidlandsboy2000 (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Source Removals

I notice that the sources saying that Graham and Pete are leaving and Dee Dee is returning keep getting removed. Also Dee Dee has now returned to the show in tonight's episode but she has been put back in the returning characters section. Why is this?77.97.55.147 (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

You need to use sources that aren't hugely restricted in use on Misplaced Pages - see WP:RSP - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I saw that the ones for The Sun had been removed and I remember reading somewhere that Misplaced Pages is now not using Sun sources but the ones I replaced them with were from Metro and Digital Spy. Are they not allowed either?77.97.55.147 (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Also now that Dee Dee is back on the show, can I add her to the current recurring characters section?77.97.55.147 (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Metro is "unreliable do not use" on that list, but DigitalSpy is considered "generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture", which is exactly what we want here - if that was removed it was probably a mistake (and sorry if it was me!) - David Gerard (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

That's OK. I just wanted to double check. I didn't know about Metro. I was going to say the Bernice source from Digital Spy is still up. Now that Dee Dee is back can I put her back on the page? The Digital Spy source for Graham didn't exactly confirm his departure in the way it was worded.77.97.55.147 (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Also Dee Dee's surname has never been mentioned onscreen in the show so I don't know where they got the idea that her name was Willis from.77.97.55.147 (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

whatever's in a good source is a good start really :-) - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Have there been sources in which Dee Dee is referred to as Willis?77.97.55.147 (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Johnny Woodfield

Misplaced Pages states that the child actor who plays Johnny Woodfield is called Luca Hepworth. However Radio Times credits him as Luca Myron Hebda so which one is it?77.97.55.147 (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The official ITV Emmerdale website credits the actor as Luca Hepworth. The official site should be more reliable than the Radio Times and we should go with that. ≠ https://www.itv.com/emmerdale/characters/johnny-woodfield

160.32.215.141 (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)samusek2

Cara Robinson

Just wondering – is Cara Robinson a regular character? Her last appearance was on 4 March 2020, nearly three months ago. I always assumed she was a recurring character, just brought in when Nate interacted with her. Was she credited or referred to as a regular? – DarkGlow (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I got the impression she was a recurring/guest character, only employed on a short contract. Soaper1234 - talk 12:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Soaper1234: Me too. Is there any way to find and check credits from episodes? – DarkGlow (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: Well it looks like she only appeared in 13 episodes, so I'd say that's enough to credit her as a guest. Soaper1234 - talk 12:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Moira bother and Manpreet sister arrival

Is anyone going to add Moira Brother and Manpreet sister to future character???? Also does anyone know their names???

IS ANYONE GOINIG TO ANSWER?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.127.211.162 (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I've added that the siblings will arrive to the top of List of Emmerdale characters (2020); it cannot be added on this article yet since we do not know the characters names or who will portray them. We don't even know their surname, but I can guarantee I will add them as soon as we know more. – DarkGlow (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Cara Robinson return

Somebody add cara to returning. She’s set to come back WikiFlame50 (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Just did it. But can somebody please fix the citing resources? It’s so complicated rn WikiFlame50 (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Done – DarkGlow (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Protection required?

I just reverted an edit of huge vandalism when an ip address Just deleted an entire section of the characters. Should this page be protected? WikiFlame50 (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@WikiFlame50: If you want to, you can put in a request at WP:RPP. I too think the page would benefit from protection, but unfortunately, my guess is that they'll take one look at the edit history and decline since there wasn't a huge edit war. – DarkGlow (✉) 02:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Chas Dingle

Can somebody fix this characters page? It’s all a mess right now WikiFlame50 (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Categories: