Talk:List of Emmerdale characters introduced in 2004

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Emmerdale task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

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 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

Fictional characters

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.

Image copyright problem with File:John McNally.png

The image File:John McNally.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emmerdale character articles; invitation to discussion

I've begun a discussion regarding the atrocious state of character articles within the Emmerdale universe. These articles stand to be deleted unless corrective action is taken. Please join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Emmerdale#Serious problems across the board; let's start with character articles. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of disruption going on!

After editing Thomas King section, I was surprised to see that there is another Thomas King section on this article. In fact, there seems to be repetition of all the characters and also incorrectly added refs. This makes for not a very nice page to view, and has likely been caused by an inexperienced editor. I see from the edit history that I am the only one to have editied this article so far today, so has been like this since at least yesterday and so needs to be fixed urgently. However, I only came here to do a quick edit and dont have the time to investigate this further or fix myself. But please can someone fix-and soon! Nocrowx (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed, thanks to Burbridge92 Nocrowx (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Swirling

Some of the text I added for PC Mike Swirling's most recent appearances seems to have been deleted. Why is this?77.97.55.147 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As some of the text was removed, I removed the rest of it too. If the section on Swirling cannot be updated then there is no point in having a section on him on this page at all.77.97.55.147 (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you provided an edit summary for you edits. Removing the character altogether is not the way to go about this. The section is far too long though and needs a drastic condensing. Perhaps you could have a go? - JuneGloom07 Talk 01:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how I can for this. I was just logging all of Swirling's appearances. Should I have just said in the edit summary box "Swirling appeared in this episode and did this" each time? It is quite hard to condense the section because of this as he appears so often. I try and add only the basic information regarding his appearances if I can and try and leave out any unnecessary detail. He is going to keep appearing in the future so if it is too hard for the page for the section to be here due to its length then maybe he should be removed or given his own page on wikipedia.77.97.55.147 (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only removed him from the page to draw attention to this. I was wanting to get the removed text reverted. I found it odd that the text I deleted was put back but not the previously deleted text. He has appeared since the incident where Charity punched the farmer and I logged the appearances but it was all just removed for no apparent reason and it would be very tedious to have to go back and re-watch all the episodes, that is if any of them are even still on itv player and I don't think I could remember what happened from memory. And even if I did add the removed text back there is no guarantee that it wouldn't be removed again.77.97.55.147 (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the question is, will the rest of the deleted text be put back? And if not, is there any point in me or anybody else editing or making editions to this page from now on?77.97.55.147 (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the deleted text going to be put back? I just need a yes or no answer. If not then I won't bother adding anything else to this particular page.77.97.55.147 (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well clearly someone has managed to condense the text. To the point that not many of his appearances are even mentioned. Why even bother mentioning them at all?77.97.55.147 (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've condensed the text even more now. There is no point even mentioning any of his appearances as he is not a main character. His existence has been acknowledged and he is still listed as a recurring character which is all people need to know. I was wrong I can condense the text after all.77.97.55.147 (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, I condense the text down, as requested, (since not every single appearance detail is needed) and you decide to just remove it all anyway? Having gone through it all, as well as rocking up to police calls, he had a friendship with Donna, which is discussed across a paragraph. Since everything else seems pretty minor, it was either removed or condensed into "he was involved in this storyline". What is the problem with it now? Soaper1234 - talk 17:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any need to even detail his storylines. Just keep the first sentence about who Swirling is and why he appears and keep it simple. That is where the one source for him is and so long as that is kept then the rest of the paragraph isn't really needed. And I won't bother contributing from now on as I would find it too difficult to put it into reduced content.77.97.55.147 (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why we shouldn't explain some storylines he has featured in, especially bits from his friendship with Donna. Soaper1234 - talk 19:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because then you would probably have to apply that to other characters as well. Swirling has been involved as a minor character on the periphery of so many storylines that how do you decide which ones to mention or not or which ones are relevant? Plus were he and Donna that close friends? They were colleagues and worked together. They only really interacted for a short time during Donna's brief return in 2014 up until she was killed off.77.97.55.147 (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]