# Talk:Neighbours

It mentions that it’s set in a “cul de sac” in the description. While I understand this is easier for British viewers to understand, it is not a term used in Australian English. I mean, it’s even called a court in the actual location. Being that this is an Australian show I feel it should follow Australian English not British English. 120.159.86.251 (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Considering Dead-end street#Australia describes Ramsay Street almost exactly in its description of where cul-de-sac is used in AUS, I've reverted for now. I feel like "court" alone isn't as clear to readers. Happy to hear further input, though. U-Mos (talk)
The term is used in Australia media though, especially when the show is mentioned: Melbourne's most trouble-prone cul-de-sac, Road to nowhere: Why the suburban cul-de-sac is an urban planning dead end, Cul-de-sacs facing a dead-end future (which contains the following sentences "For decades the cul-de-sac has been as much a part of Australian suburban life as quarter-acre blocks, Hills hoists and a barbecue in the backyard." and "The Aussie cul-de-sac has achieved international fame in long-running soapie Neighbours, filmed in a cul-de-sac in Melbourne.") - JuneGloom07 Talk 01:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes but it’s nowhere near as popular used as dead end street in this country. It would be like saying Father Christmas instead of Santa Claus (Father Christmas being only used by the older generation.) Being dead end street or court is far more common in usage, this should be the term. I feel using cul-de-sac is just pandering to British readers. It would be like calling it a programme instead of a programme. 120.159.86.251 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article was reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

The article is too detailed, making it excessively long. The "History" sometimes contains a paragraph for every season (especially recent ones) when only the most important, overarching information should be included.
The "Setting" section is also too large and too detailed
The "Broadcast" section is too large and contains many short, one sentence paragraphs that should be merged together.
The "International versions and cooperations" has an uncited paragraph
Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we (those who worked on the article) should have a go at fixing the issues first, especially as it's mostly copy-editing and condensing. I'd understand taking it straight to GAR if it had major issues, like paragraphs of unsourced content. - JuneGloom07 Talk 01:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree with June. Why don't you work with us to try resolve the issues? 5 albert square (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
@JuneGloom07 and 5 albert square: I ask about GAR see if anyone is interested in fixing up the article, or if it should go to a review. If editors are addressing the concerns, I won't send an article to GAR. When the above are resolved, I am happy to re-review. If you have any questions, feel free to ping me. Z1720 (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Ah okay. I think there will be editors willing to work on any concerns. I've already sorted the issue in the "International versions and cooperations" section. - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
I've started with the Broadcast section. I'll continue more once I'm back from my Wikibreak 5 albert square (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
@JuneGloom07 and 5 albert square: Following up with this: and pinging you because you participated in the conversation above: great work has been published on the article, and I think there are still places for improvements, so I did another review and this is what I noticed:
The "Cancellation and revival" section seems quite long and could probably be trimmed,
"Popularity and viewership" is quite large and can probably be trimmed.
There are also lots of other places where information can be summarised more effectively or trimmed, with individual sentences merged or cut.
"Titles" is far too much detail for this article and can be trimmed massively or cut: most TV shows do not devote much prose to the show's title card as it is too much detail.
In the opposite direction, the "Cultural impact" section seems quite short, especially for such a long running show,
The article doesn't have a "Reception" or "Critical commentary" section where critic reviews of the show are described: I don't know if this is in the article prose already, but I would expect this to have its own section in any article about a TV show.
Let ping if there are any questions and I hope this article can continue to improve. Z1720 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

The Cultural impact section is a recent addition, but I can try to expand it. I think most of the Titles section is actually about the opening credits, not the title card. Neighbours updates its credits fairly frequently due to cast changes, so it gets reported on. The article has never had a reception section, but if it is to have one, then I think waiting until the final episode airs would be best. - JuneGloom07 Talk 17:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
@JuneGloom07: Are you still interested in working on this? If not, no worries. Z1720 (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
@Z1720: Sorry, yes I am. I've been working on a few other things, but I did do some trimming of the Titles section. I'll make a start on the viewership and cancellation sections today. - JuneGloom07 Talk
I've done some trimming (and clean up) of the Viewership and Cancellation/revival sections. - JuneGloom07 Talk 03:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)