Talk:Coronation Street

Yearly Ratings Averages

Hi I'm just wondering with regards to discussion further up on a ratings table what the criteria for 'sourcing' of ratings averages would be. I see a user at Corriepedia has managed to source the entire ratings history from various contemporary publications; however many of these are not available online or available without education institution linked subscription. This makes the episode by episode viewing figures on their site the only online source of this data, I assume this data-set wouldn't meet the threshold for use towards a table on Wikipedia, despite the overall sources being explained on their site. If it did I'd be happy to start putting such a ratings table together over the next few weeks or so, by collating the data but wouldn't want to do so if it can't be used without direct sourcing of the magazines, which is frankly impossible at present. Snookerfootyfan (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Geoff Metcalfe storyline

I'm just wondering if it would be a good idea to add more information about this storyline? At the moment, the only details are that we saw the conclusion of it in the anniversary week. It was one of the most controversial and despised storylines, so I think it might be worth noting A) Geoff died and B) how the dramatic showdown fit within social distancing guidelines? SFVP (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@SFVP: I agree. However, please remember to discuss the storyline from a neutral point of view (NPOV) Bry lin997 (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Storylines section

The Storylines section in this article seems a little strange. It's just a long list of topics / keywords, which I've never really seen on other articles. Seems like it would be better to replace this with the first summary paragraph, or a rewrite of that, from the Storylines of Coronation Street article. I wasn't sure if this was appropriate so I wanted to post here. Jmbld (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jmbld: The Hollyoaks article had a list exactly like that until recently when I removed it, since it's WP:LISTCRUFT. The Storylines of Coronation Street article also needs some TLC, so I wouldn't be quick to use that as a basis for this article. I'll remove the section altogether for now, and look into readding sourced, good quality info at a later date. – DarkGlow • 20:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: Thanks for doing this, I think it was definitely an improvement to remove it and I'll let someone else decided then if there's a summary needed on this page or not. Jmbld (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: I had another question out of curiosity: Saw that you added a banner at the top that says "This article needs additional citations for verification." but there are almost 200 citations already on the page. Is there a requirement for a certain number of citations on an article? I was confused by the banner. Jmbld (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jmbld: Hi – it's less about the number of references and more about the amount of unsourced statements on the article. There are waaay too many. When I noticed how many there are, I was going to start removing/sourcing statements, but I didn't have the time (still haven't had it) to improve the article, so I placed the tag in the meantime. – DarkGlow • 18:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: Oh that makes more sense. I'll take a look when I have time and see if I can help with that, even if its just a small dent. Appreciate the explanation! Jmbld (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jmbld: That would be a great help. Just an FYI, anything in-universe (aka storyline sections) do not need sourcing as the programme acts as the source. Anything else, such as castings, ratings, set information, etc etc needs a source. – DarkGlow • 19:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hour-long episodes

Since Corrie used to be a 6x half-hourly soap, we used to count hour-long episodes as 2 episodes. However, in March, ITV stated from then onwards the show would transmit 3x hour-long episodes. So are we now counting an hour-long episode as one episode in regards to updating the infobox? This would make sense to me, since the producers are now considering an hour-long episode whilst writing/filming the ep rather than having the mindset of two half-hourly eps. Thoughts? – DarkGlow • 10:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I've resolved this issue now by counting the hour-long episodes transmitted from 7 March 2022 onwards as 1 episode. I took the BGT week of half-hourly episodes into account too, so don't worry about that. – DarkGlow • 19:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that wikipedia editors were working out the episode count themselves, but assumed there was an official count somewhere from ITV. Logically it makes sense to count the hour long episodes as a single episode, as that is what they are. May skew comparisons over the years when it looks (erroneously) like other shows have given more air-time. I'd sooner know if ITV have an official stance on that (I am sure they must have their own records). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The only rare time that a soap acknowledges their own episode count is when a landmark episode airs, such as the 10,000th episode in 2020 which received coverage. I agree that confirmation would be good as I agree that the count has probably gone off-piste due to natural human error. – DarkGlow • 20:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: I still think they counted hour long episodes (before and after the march 2022 schedule change) as 2 half hour eps since apparently they are written by different writers and producers etc? It’s a bit confusing really isn’t it… Blanchey (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the hour-long eps are still two half hours stuck together I understand (hence the customary "cliffhanger" halfway through) - you can tell by the production numbers in the Corrie Wiki: https://coronationstreet.fandom.com/wiki/Episode_11047/8_(1st_September_2023)

All to do with overseas sales I believe, or if they have to split am episode to schedule around football etc. 88.255.101.99 (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Reception section?

There's usually one on media pages. 78.148.59.213 (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to add one. – Meena • 14:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

April Fools Prank

In the "Popular Culture" bit, it has a news article about CS being in an April Fools Prank. This has been removed as its called "befitting", but it is not as it actually part of the "popular culture" – it is not randomly in there. It shows how the soap is well known and part of popular culture. However, some authors want it removed. What is everyone's thoughts on this? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for raising this on the talk page. I don't think an edit war is in anyone's interests so getting some wider views is probably sensible. Secondly, this appears to have been added 1st April 2019 by an unknown IP editor, so isn't a recent addition but none the less, duration of prose doesn't in itself make it a reason for retention. My concerns here are that:

• This is reporting by one single media outlet (and one reporter), in a country that isn't actually where the soap is based
• The outlet originally "reporting" it (thejournal.ie) essentially wrote the following (and is being used as a dubious WP:PRIMARY source on the article):

Jeremy Corbyn tried to set up a last minute rebuttal on tonight’s Coronation Street but locals there are still in mourning over the knicker factory tragedy last month.

• The other source mentioned, from dublinlive.ie (here) does not at all mention this "prank", instead only mentioning the Eastenders one

So in essence, we have a single primary source, seemingly by a reporter working for that media outlet, writing a one sentence "gag" in response to something else which was also a gag/prank. Where else is this prank mentioned, specifically in relation to Coronation Street, and why is it notable enough for inclusion? It isn't, quite simply. The IP editor who removed this was absolutely correct to do so, as it's useless trivia with no wider reporting and is actually just a one-sentence gag comment. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I have restored the revision as this is a big sourced piece of text and thus it shouldn't be removed without consensus DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: I am guessing some are still enjoying the festive season so maybe have not read this yet, however I am also inclined to post a WP:RFC if you, for whatever reason, think this prose should remain. Do you have any response to my observations above (namely that, the paragraph in question is seemingly based on a single-sentence throw-away comment by a reporter in a single news outlet)? Do you see the point I am making here? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I am very sorry, I had wanted to think a little bit before adding to the contribution. I'll be honest, I am sitting on the fence now. I think it is worthy of mention, but I do understand the issue with the sources, and completely understand your point of view... I will ping some more editors and see what they think. Thank you so much for all of your hardwork! You're awesome! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:Meena, @User:Blanchey, @User:JuneGloom07 and @User:Raintheone – what are your thoughts? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: As it doesn't seem like we'll have much, if any, further contribution, there are perhaps 2 options at this moment:

• Take to WP:RFC, which i'd be somewhat reluctant to do, given the nature of what is actually disputed (i.e. it's so trivial to be something you'd normally want to request wider comments on)
• You decide whether you accept my expressions of concern and the rationale for removal, in which case, we remove it

I am baffled why you think it remains worthy of inclusion when it's been established to be based around a throw-away daft comment by a single person in response to a prank report, which is itself juvenile. I'm not going to shift from that position unless it happened to be reported in multiple alternate reliable sources. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Theme Tune: what a derge

Might not the section on Music be adjusted to mention that - as well as the same boring derge it always was - the theme tune has now become hopelessly dated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.161 (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Production changes

The information in this article on major changes to the production in terms of the number of characters being included at any given time being cut to save costs as well as updated viewing figures should be worked into the article "Coronation Street stars in panic as their hours are cut by ITV bosses to save cash". Wellington Bay (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Coronation Street Ending On 27 December 2024

ITV2 has confirmed that Coronation Street will finally be coming to an end due to those boring storylines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.187.197 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

COVID-19 Storylines

They should’ve started filming for the new episodes of it in July instead of June. 148.252.140.18 (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The storylines for 2020 was the worst times I prefer it should’ve ended in 2020 cuz covid-19 stopped coronation street and it should’ve ended for good cuz everyone’s caught it. 148.252.140.18 (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

All the actors/actresses have stayed at home and the show should have ended in 2020 for good. At 60th anniversary special in 2020 should’ve been the ending for coronation street 148.252.140.18 (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)