Talk:Rita Tanner

	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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 articles

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 articles

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

On 2 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Rita Sullivan to Rita Tanner. The result of the discussion was moved.

Tempary Leave

Rita has left the show due to her bad heath she is due back to filming in January 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.87.22 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[1]RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 04:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name Changes. Common sense should determine "Common Name"

It has come to my attention that the policy WP:COMMONNAME is incredibly problematic when it comes to fictional characters, particularly in soap operas in which new married names are appropriated. The ending credits of the programmes' themselves are altered accordingly and yet many people seem to deem it necessary to retain the previous name, sometimes for years after the change has occurred. While in many cases I agree and understand why no action is taken, particularly as characters marry, divorce and change their names so swiftly nowadays, I do think a certain amount of common sense should be applied when choosing to retain the old names of characters who have taken on new aliases and are highly unlikely to change it again. Also, the popularity of the new name should be taken into account. In the case of Rita Tanner for instant if you type "Coronation Street Rita" into Google, it immediately suggests 'Tanner' over the previously used 'Sullivan'. This is because the new name has a more iconic status in the public consciousness and has come to define her identity relatively quickly. The media must also be taken into account as tabloids make efforts to use the most recent names (And before anyone states otherwise, you must understand that Wikipedia's responsibility here is vital as I know of many lazy journalists who will browse the site, see the article title and assume it's the correct name). While there are exceptions to this rule - EastEnders' Pat Butcher will forever be defined as that despite her final name being Pat Evans - there are iconic names which substitute lesser ones (Tanner/Sullivan is a good example and I would also argue quite passionately that so is Platt/Turner) and they must be recognised. Finally, it is Wikipedia's duty to provide accurate, up-to-date information and in many of the lists of soap opera cast members I can see characters listed under names they have not had in the main credits for not only months but years. If I read the current cast list, I see names such as 'Kylie Turner' and 'Faye Butler', these characters are not a part of the current programme as far as the makers themselves are concerned and also in the eyes of the viewing public for who the end credits are supposed to inform, Wikipedia is therefore providing inaccurate information in this regard. While WP:COMMONNAME works excellently for living people who may have nicknames or pseudonyms, for fictional characters in soap operas it presents issues in regards to no longer accurately defining the identity of the article in question. The numerous edits made by amateur members of the public to update captions to the recent name are surely a sign of what the consensus is and Wikipedia's duty has to be to reflect information accurately. I therefore suggest that articles such as this one and others are thoroughly reviewed and name changes are applied where common sense deems it necessary. Anyone searching for the old name is immediately redirected. Rita Tanner seems to qualify as a good candidate, as the name is more iconic than her previous one, Google searches rank it higher and she is highly likely to retain it for the rest of her time in the programme (Again, this is common sense.). It would also save time on having to revert edits of picture captions etc. by the vast majority of people who, rightly in my opinion, believe the characters should be going by the new name in many cases. I previously tried to make these points last year on the Coronation Street edits page, but I was ignored. Thank you, I would be grateful for your opinions. --ScouseScholar (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we should be discussing this article only on this talk page, and not potentially every fictional character article on Wikipedia (there's a WikiProject for that). Also, there is a requested move for Kylie but nobody has replied, though I would be in favour in that case. Personally, when I think Rita, I think Sullivan, not Tanner (I've only been watching since 2008, but even in that short time the name Sullivan has had much more impact on me). Google has many more results of Rita Sullivan, as does Google News. I don't think it's right to move this page at this time, considering she's been named Rita Sullivan since 1992—over 20 years (longer than she was apparently called Rita Fairclough and certainly longer than she was called Rita Littlewood)—and Rita Tanner for just a fraction of that time. –anemone projectors– 20:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the common name is decided upon the length of time the name has been used? It seems a very flawed form of reasoning, if you ask me. I do think it is incredibly worrying that something as important as the article titles are decided by an elite group of editors (No offence to yourself intended). In the case of fictional characters in soap operas it is my belief, and I am sure many readers of these articles will agree, that it should be kept up to date in these circumstances. The programme makers do not choose to use common names, they use the most recent name in their end credits. I fail to see the problem when a suitable redirect from the old name is applied and it honours Wikipedia's duty to inform by providing readers with an article with the correct title. 'Tanner' is a more iconic name than 'Sullivan' and in the short space of time she has had it, the media and Google search demonstrates it has had a significant impact in determining her identity. --ScouseScholar (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"So the common name is decided upon the length of time the name has been used?" - no, it's decided by consensus. I was just giving my opinion. That's why we need more people to discuss this. An official move requst might help, like the one with Kylie (that I have now supported). –anemone projectors– 17:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen you tried to discuss this in July at the Coronation Street WikiProject, unfortunately that didn't get anywhere either. I just had a thought though. Rita's common name is more likely to be "Rita" than "Rita [surname]" to the majority of viewers. Unless they scrutinise the credits, they're unlikely to know or remember a character's last name as they're very rarely mentioned in episodes. –anemone projectors– 17:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My view here. Although google may show Rita Tanner as its first result on your search, as AP has pointed out, Rita Sullivan gets many more sources overall. Is she really now more known as Rita Tanner than Rita Sullivan by the wider public? I dont watch Corrie, but obviously know the character of Rita, and I think of her as Sullivan rather than Tanner. I agree that Tanner is a more iconic family name overall than Sullivan in Corrie, but is it more iconic in relation to Rita? There is a similar issue at the moment that we have in EastEnders over the characters of Bianca Jackson/Butcher and Kat Slater/Moon. But Bianca has been a Butcher and Kat a Moon for far longer than Rita has been a Tanner, and so while Kat and Bianca have had time to be attached to those names in the minds of the viewing public, i'm not sure that they have with Rita. Bleaney (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is that when writing about fiction, we do it all in present tense. That's because it's fiction, and—this does apply to soaps too—we write as if every moment of that character is happening right now. That means that Tanner isn't her current name. All of her names are her current name, and therefore we have to decide which is the most "common". (This is why I want to remove "previously" from the names in fictional character articles.) –anemone projectors– 18:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I reckon Sullivan is the commmon name here. I just looked on Highbeam and Fairclough was better at finding sources than Tanner - but obviously Sullivan is a popular choice. I suggest drawing up one of those search result tables. That will offer some insight. Plus it is better to act after providing the evidence - not always the case though, so we might be okay to make an exeption here, like with Kylie Turner.Rain the 1 23:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'd have thought this was a no-brainer, since she was Sullivan for over 20 years. I don't know how to get the number of results for Google News archive, since they changed the site, but there were pages for Sullivan and no results for Tanner. A normal Google search has "About 72,200 results" for "Rita Sullivan" and "About 10,700 results" for "Rita Tanner", though I know that includes Wikipedia and its mirrors, which is why we tend to use News and Books and whatever. Sullivan just beats Fairclough in a Google Books search. –anemone projectors– 16:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deserves a review. It's been twelve years now since Rita was married, and the Google searches now support her common name as Rita Tanner. Google results show "Rita Tanner Coronation Street" as 371,000 results, with Sullivan on 322,000. Narrowing it to news results, Rita Tanner is on 300, with Sullivan on 299. Time it changed. Ooh, Fruity (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Rita Sullivan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Sullivan → Rita Tanner – It's been twelve years now since the character was married and her name changed, and the Google searches now support her common name as Rita Tanner. Google results show "Rita Tanner Coronation Street" as 371,000 results, with Sullivan on 322,000. Narrowing it to news results, Rita Tanner is on 300+ (the number stays at "about 300" for all results above), with Sullivan on 299. When you narrow it to books, Rita Tanner once again brings up far more relevant results as a more recognisable name attached to the series. There is no good reason to keep using the character's old name after all this time. Ooh, Fruity (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Women, WikiProject Coronation Street, WikiProject Fictional characters, and WikiProject Soap Operas have been notified of this discussion. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.