This article is within the scope of WikiProject Coronation Street, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Coronation Street and its characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Coronation StreetWikipedia:WikiProject Coronation StreetTemplate:WikiProject Coronation StreetCoronation Street
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 Wikipedia. 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. 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
On 15 August 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved. The result of the discussion was move.
There has been some issues with the spelling of the character’s last name as earlier sources used on spelling but other sources after the character appeared on screen had an updated spelling. Here are a couple from March 29, and from March 28.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Fizgerald appeared in two episodes, and barely had a few minutes screentime. He does not deserve to have his own section, where other regular characters, like Tyler - who has appeared in nearly twenty episodes and has now extended family, is still in the "other characters" section. Connorguy99 (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As explained on my talk page, Mr Fitzgerald has a section because there is development information about him. If you can find sources to create development information about Tyler, then he can have a section. Soaper1234 - talk20:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The character had no development whatsoever. They appeared for less than two minutes all together - I understand that you have went to the effort of finding links for the character's section, but this was really unneeded for this character and the time would have been better spent on a more developed character. Connorguy99 (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I said development, I didn't mean character development in the series, I meant sources for a character section. I don't really know how to best explain that it doesn't matter how much a character appears, they can still have a section, but it really is as simple as that. Soaper1234 - talk20:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not every character needs a section of their own, if that was a thing we would eventually have three-hundred sections for every single minor character to have appeared each year. There is no need for this. Connorguy99 (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're struggling to understand what I mean. Every minor character does not get their own section because not every minor character has enough sources to create a section, hence why they remain in Others like Tyler. However, occasionally, you will find that there are enough sources to create sections for minor characters, like in the case of Mr Fitzgerald. If you can find enough sources for sections for minor characters then by all means, do it! It's great to include as many characters as we can. Please let me know if I haven't been clear enough with my explanation. Also, to add, your reverts have included the removal of some development for other characters, which has nothing to do with Mr Fitzgerald. I am going to re-add this particular aspect as it has nothing to do with the debate at hand. @Oshwah: Thank you for stopping the reverts in case of an edit war, something which I am trying to avoid. Soaper1234 - talk20:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is unnecessary. He is not a main/regular or even notable character. I don't believe how many sources you can find matters - you wouldn't seen me forcing Darren Dobbs or Wendy Neeson into the "regular" character section of the "current characters" page just because I found a few sources that the characters appeared this year. Connorguy99 (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely different. Darren and Wendy both have their own sections in their respective character pages. I'm struggling to understand how that fits into this at all. I haven't denied that Mr Fitzgerald was a guest character. I'm just saying that there was enough sources found to add to a section for him. You have effectively just wiped a lot of hard work. Soaper1234 - talk21:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Darren and Wendy have their own sections because, even though they may have not appeared too much, they are still notable. Mr Fitzgerald is NOT, we don't even know the character's name - I don't see why such a character even needs sources let alone a main section? It is bizarre. Connorguy99 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant how notable the character is within the show; the reason he has a section is based on what sources are available to write about. For example, if I had multiple interviews about a character that appeared over a week, I would create a section because that is a lot of sources and lots to write about. It wouldn't matter if they didn't appear for long because there was information to write about. Do you understand what I mean? Soaper1234 - talk21:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be easy to find a few sources for EVERY single character that has appeared on the show, but it isn't needed. They should be left in the "other characters" section as they just aren't notable. This is all I have to say on the matter, I just think it is a shame you spent so much time on such a character. Connorguy99 (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find it ridiculous that you are criticising me for finding sources and including them in a section about a character when that is simply the point of the article. If you can establish notability for every single character that has appeared on the show then by all means do it. But it would be a hard job because there aren't sources out there on every single character, hence why when sources can be found, they are included in the lists. I won't lie - I'm finding it really hard to explain this to you as you don't seem to want to register any other ideas. Soaper1234 - talk21:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The WHOLE point of the "other characters" section is to include characters that are not notable enough to have their own section. There is no need for a character, who has had less than five minutes screentime to have a large section for themselves - that is what I find ridiculous! You treating me like an invalid is frustrating, because I can see the point that you're trying to make - although I completely reject it. Connorguy99 (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't watch Corrie anymore so I have no idea who Mr Fitzgerald is, but looking at the section that was there for the character, I believe he should have his own section. A one-scene character can have their own section if there is reception for the character. Adam Weafer's casting as Mr Fitzgerald has been discussed in various sources and Weafer has talked about it, while a journalist reported on the character's impact on viewers. It does not matter if the character is a main or regular character. If there are sources, there can be a section. If you can find real-world information for every character, then yes, every character can have a section. The whole point of writing about fictional characters on Wikipedia is that they are mostly written from a real-world perspective (WP:WAF), so if there is even one source calling a characters "dodgy" or reporting they were popular with viewers, then that counts as they get their own section. "Other characters" is for those with no real-world perspective, not what Connorguy99 says it is for. This is the same across other soap opera character lists (for example, List of EastEnders characters (2018) gives several one- and two-episode characters their own section, such as Henry, Brianna and Marky, but a recently added character, Zara, has no sources so should be moved to "others"). And we do know Mr Fitzgerald's name, it's Mr Fitzgerald. (Please ping me if you reply, thanks!) — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors06:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do watch Corrie, and I also keep an eye on both this article and the List of EastEnders characters article. From what I can see from a quick Google search, it does certainly appear that there is enough reception for Mr Fitzgerald to have his own section. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the character had no impact on viewers whatsoever. Got a source for that?
I think AP has covered it all really. Soaper1234 put in the effort to find casting and reception info for the character, and has established notability. You might not like it, but I think you're going to have to accept it. - JuneGloom07Talk13:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is ridiculous, I will bite my tongue in future and just hope that no other random characters are given their own section - especially when they don't deserve it. I do hope someone mocks this foolish ruling however, and gives a large section taking up a large part of the page to "Thug Number One". Connorguy99 (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done - protection is now removed. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)