|Text from this version of Leanne Battersby (Coronation Street) was copied or moved into Leanne Battersby with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Leanne Battersby (Coronation Street).|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 24 August 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.|
Fair use rationale for Image:Leanne Battersby CS 2007.jpg
Image:Leanne Battersby CS 2007.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 07:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Family — To Step or Not to Step?
I re-input Leanne's extended family for two reasons: (1) to eliminate them only because they are “step” family members suggests the editor who deleted comes from that rare beast, a nuclear family, and cannot fathom how one might consider one's step-family members as family; and (2) just because her storyline does not currently have her involved with any of them does not change the facts of Leanne's life, current or past. SpikeToronto (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm following a legend of friend of mine here. Trampikey by not couting stepfamily or in-laws in British soap characters articles. He started with EastEnders and Emmerdale, and I gradually followed suit on All of the other main british soaps; However, I'm not above listing stepfamily information in Australian soap articles. Conquistador2k600:27 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I’m all for following models to maintain some consistency across articles for soap opera characters. In fact, in a recent debate, re: deletion of the Roy Cropper article, a wikipedian pointed to the wikiarticle on Pauline Fowler as a good example for us to follow. That being said, there’s following models … and then there’s being slavish about it. If there is a good reason to list “step” family members in Australian (and American) soaps, then why would the same logic not apply to British soaps? Other than following a model that might have that as its one flaw, what reason could there be to suspend that logic vis-à-vis soaps from the U.K.? I think that if a character considers, or has in the past considered, another character as family, such persons should be so listed. Also, it helps new viewers of the soap to better orient themselves as to the familial relationships, consanguineous and otherwise, of the characters whom they are watching. SpikeToronto (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Subheadings make this article much easier to navigate. A reader need only click on the section s/he is interested in from the table of contents and be directed straight to it. Moreover, the Wikipedia Manual of Style reminds us that once a subheading is created, elsewhere on Wikipedia, other wikiauthors create wikilinks to it. To unilaterally remove a subheading — or to alter a subheading — is to break those links. See also: Section Headings. Nonetheless, even if one could remove them, the article is much easier to navigate with them left in place. SpikeToronto (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- The use of subheadings in this article is absolutely and completely excessive. The contents of each subheading is stubby, unreferenced, and in direct violation of WP:PLOT. Summary of the character's storylines should be brief, and not take precedence over real world information, which this article is entirely lacking. One or two subheadings might be acceptable, 19 is absolutely not. Frickative (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I used to hate this character, but I have to say, for the last few years the performances have been making me sit up on the edge of my seat. The actress who plays her is the most believable and impressive actress on TV today www.buchangrant.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Change Title of Page to 'Leanne Barlow'?
I think as she's been credited as 'Leanne Barlow' for quite some time, it makes a lot more sense to have the actual page with that title as opposed to her maiden name. Anybody else agree with me? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)