Talk:Pauline Fowler/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Pauline and Joe = Jauline?

Or should we refer to them as Poe? :) --Sweetie Petie 19:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry and thank you

I didn't hear Pauline say she would be keeping her name which is why I moved the page - but some silly person did a revert instead of moving the page back so it's not my fault things got messed up! Thanks to whoever deleted the article so it could done properly. --Sweetie Petie 11:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem! They still have her listed as Pauline Macer at Walford Web... which is annoying! Trampikey 09:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Italics

Is it right that Pauline's relatives are all in italics when others like Rebecca Miller are not? Which is right? — Gary Kirk // talk! 15:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Members of the WikiProject are currently in the process of changing the style and order of family sections for all EastEnders characters. Soon they will all be the same. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Current storyline

Anyone else find it ludicrous? 82.69.28.55 16:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just glad shes gone the old battleaxe :} sailor cuteness-ready for love 01:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Family question

I find the section about Holland's cousin confusing. Does this mean that he had cousins who were fraternal twins, named Pete and Pauline, and that his aunt's name was Lou? --Elonka 21:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it says that in the article. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Status

This article seems to meet GA status. It is well referenced and complete. For higher status such as A or FA it should either be shortened or broken into more subsections. Cott12 Talk 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this article has many excellent qualities, but that the plot summary is way too long. It appears to be well-referenced, but upon a closer look, many of those references are just to episode guides, rather than real-world impact as per WP:FICTION. I recommend trimming it down to 500-1000 words. --Elonka 20:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been adding a {{plot}} tag to the article, but it keeps getting removed. So, I would like to give fair warning that I do not believe that this article still meets Good Article status, specifically the Manual of Style on fiction. As such, if the problems are not addressed, the Good Article status could be in danger. --Elonka 00:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, I dont know who removed the Tag or why, but your critique has been noted. I will bring it up at the project Talk Page and see how the other members want to proceed. As you can imagine a lot of work has gone into an aticle of this size, and we will need to agree on what should be reduced or excluded, or it will keep getting put back in.

The character was in it for 22 years, so i'm sure you must realise that reducing her storyline section to 500-1000 words is going to be extremely difficult. You may not believe this but we havent included every storyline that the character has ever been in, only what we felt were the important things. I do agree it could and should be reduced in parts.

There are only a couple of active members of the EE project, so it may take some time to do. It may be difficult to maintain any changes anyway, as users unfamiliar with policy often extend these articles. Particularly those of current characters.Gungadin 00:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, what Gungadin said - it may get done, it may not, you may want to do it yourself, although you don't seem to know the show, so I don't think it would be advisable... we have a lot to do, you know. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate that she's a longterm character with a devoted fanbase, and that there's additional attention on the article especially because of her recent retirement. Some of the plot summary is indeed well-done and tied in to real-world context. However, other sections are actually in danger of being copyright violations. For example, "Pauline, stumbled over her packed bags next to the table, knocking over her favourite fruit bowl, which smashed into pieces.Pauline lay on the floor with smashed glass surrounding her, Sonia apologised and begged her to rethink her decision for Martin and Rebecca's sake," or "On the same night, Dot went to the Fowlers' house to find Rebecca's toy rabbit, which had been dropped there. Whilst there, Dot heard someone coming into the house, it was Pauline's husband Joe." If at least those sections of the article that go into "blow by blow" detail could be edited down, it would be a big help. One of the reasons that this is an issue, is because we're having disputes on other articles about plot summaries, and when we try to tell people to edit it down, they point at this article and say, "Well, the Pauline Fowler article has an even longer summary, and that one's at GA status! We're just following that example." So, I'd like to see either that this article has GA status removed until it can be cleaned up, or that it get cleaned up first so that it doesn't lose the status at all. --Elonka 00:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes you're right. The plot parts you quoted above were added mostly by users who arent in the project, and I agree they are very detailed in the death section especially. I had planned to shorten that and rid it of the unnecessary stuff, but haven't got around to doing it. What tends to happen is that we get an overly long summary on storylines that have just happened or have recently happened. People add to the articles after just seeing the episode. As such they remember every detail, which may seem important at the time, but several months later just seems unnecessary to anyone reading it. It can definitely be shortened in a lot of places. I will attempt to do something sometime this weekend, but I will discuss it with the project first.Gungadin 00:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be wonderful, thank you. Also, would you be willing to consider the possibility of re-adding the {{plot}} tag to at least the Death section? Having the notice there would be useful for other projects, since it would notify new users that they shouldn't necessarily be looking at the Pauline Fowler article as an "example to emulate" right now. Thanks, Elonka 01:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I dont know who took it off, I noticed the tag last night and came on late tonight and it had gone. looking at the history it appears to be an an anonymous IP who removed it. I'll put it back in.Gungadin 01:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

To address the people "using this as an example", just quote WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I agree that the tag should be in the death section, but the rest is fine. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Condensing the plot

I was asked to take another look at the article, but I still feel that the plot summary (at 4,500 words) is way too long. There's a great deal of detail that is simply not interesting or relevant to non-fans, and it has no sources other than the show itself. To give an example of the type of material that can be condensed, I made a sample edit, here:[1] I'm also happy to go through and condense other sections (I've done this for other shows as well), but I agree it might be better if someone actually familiar with the subject matter is the one that does this. I still recommend condensing things down to about 1,000 words. --Elonka 06:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit was good as far as I can see (from a glance) but you left out the part about the fire, which woud've been her suicide had she not been rescued, which I added back in. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes good work. It might be best if a non-fan does the cutting as they can possibly be more objective about what is relevant and what is not.Gungadin 11:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

However, someone familiar with the show knows what was most important to the plot... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it's only you and I who are likely to do it. I had a go yesterday and cut about 1000 or so words, which was apparently still not good enough. So unless you're going to have a go then Elonka seems to be the only one willing to do it.Gungadin 12:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I may tackle it, but the only thing I'd be good at would be recent events, not things I can't remember... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

the thing is, we think all the material is relevant, that was why we put it on the page. Anyway, Elonka keeps saying that she recommends conensing to 1000 words, and what she really means is "I want it condensed to 1000 words, so do it!!" I dont think I could condense it by that much, but i'll try and do the death section and see how it goes. Elonka may not know that show and she may only be doing this so her orders on other fictional characters arent undermined, but if she condenses it in a way that is going to be satisfactory to her, then why not let her do it? Gungadin 15:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Because then it is only satisfactory to her, not to members of the project who actuall maintain these articles, and don't just go around making orders, then moving on when they are obeyed. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

lol :) Gungadin 16:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

C'mon folks, keeps edits focused on the article, not on the editors who are working on it. I've been doing my best to assume good faith here, please show me the same courtesy. We're all members of the same project, Wikipedia. Most of my own efforts are in Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas of which EE is a part. For an example of the other type of cruft we're dealing with, see Harley Cooper. My energies are focused here on Pauline's article because I want to help it keep GA status, and then I want to cite it all over the place as an example of what a good character article should look like. :) --Elonka 17:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion as a policy-pushing editor who is not at all familiar with the show. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No offence was intended Elonka. I have been trying to reduce it per your instructions for the last two days. I got rid of a lot more just now. Can you tell me what the word count stands at now please? does this site have the ability to check that? Gungadin 18:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it easiest to paste the text into Microsoft Word, which has a "word count" feature under "Tools", and you can also set up a word count button on the toolbar. Currently this article's storyline section is over 3,500 words, which makes it the longest plot summary of any WP:GA character article on Wikipedia. :/ I'd recommend chopping it by at least half. And I'd be happy to go in and help with the work myself (which you would of course be able to review), but I don't want to step on your own efforts? --Elonka 18:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You already did. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I only worked on one section. I'd be happy to do the full job and then have it reviewed if you'd like. I just see that there's active editing by those who are more knowledgeable about the show, and I don't want to get into an edit conflict with you. --Elonka 18:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will finish doing as much reducing as I can, then if it still isnt enough you can have a go if that's ok? Don't forget that the references, images and headings shouldnt be included in the word count.Gungadin 18:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Or piped links, such as "[[abortion|get rid of it]]" - only the "get rid of it" should be included. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood, and you can of course edit anything I do. But I'll hold off until you're done. A question I do have though, as someone who doesn't watch the show -- at what point was she introduced? It seems that she was an adult, but I can't tell at exactly which age. Was she single, had she had any children yet? --Elonka 18:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

She was there from the first episode, in her forties with two gorwn up children and one on the way. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd add that in somewhere. Like right now the storyline says that she got engaged to Arthur when she was 20, but it's not clear how much of this is backstory that came out later, and how much was actually on the show. My own impression from my first read of the article, was that he proposed to her in one of the episodes. So my question now is, how did that information emerge? Did they do flashbacks with younger actors, or just drop tidbits in other dialogue and it all had to be pieced together? --Elonka 19:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's all from conversation within the show and the tie-in novels. The particular information about Arthur proposing has been mentioned both in the show and in the novels. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

her original conceptualisation has been published by the makers of the programme in a behind the scenes book. You can find this info in a quoted paragraph at the top of the out of universe section under the backgorund section.Gungadin 19:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the word "novel" appears in a single place in the article. How many were there, what were their titles, especially if Pauline was a key character in any of them. I'd definitely include those, and clarify which parts of the storyline came from the TV show, and which from the novels. That's definite "real-world" context.  :) Other questions that come to my mind when reading this:

• Are there awards in the UK, similar to the Daytime Emmys of the U.S.? If so, was Pauline's character ever nominated?
• What was the highest-rated show that Pauline ever appeared in? EastEnders is known for having the highest-rated episode in UK soap history, in December 1986. Was Pauline a key storyline of that show, or was it mostly about the Watts' divorce? --Elonka 20:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your efforts here, Elonka 20:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The novels need to be mentioned, I agree. To address your other questions:

• Pauline or Wendy Richards never won any big awards.
• The December 86 episode mainly revolved around the Watts' divorce, and isn't really anything to do with Pauline. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, can you cite this statement please? "Described as a washerwoman who knew about everyone's dirty laundry..." -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Im' sick to death of Pauline and this articles, I never did like her. Can someone tell me which bits still need reducing please? Gungadin 20:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ive done a word count removing refs, titles, images, and most pipe lines. It's ROUGHLY 2900 words now.Gungadin 20:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Gungadin, would you like me to delete this article so we can pretend she never existed? :) — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

lol, yes please. She's been nothing but an irritant, and ive read this article so much this weekend that I think I know every word. The whole storyline section should just be replaced with "Pauline was a miserable, peroxide old bag, who spent almost 22 moaning."Gungadin 21:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No argument here.  ;) BTW, that "washerwoman" quote was a paraphrase from here:[2] --Elonka 22:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, both Gungadin and I have done out utmost best to reduce this to the seemingly "magic number" of 1000 words, but cannot do it without taking out important plot details. I suggest (as I did above) that if the sole reason you are demanding this is to use this article as an example, you should quote this policy at users. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's looking much MUCH better, thank you. I'm still curious as to which plot elements came from which books though? --Elonka 09:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's stated in the pre-serial appearances section... did you read it at all? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The only book I saw mentioned was Swings and Roundabouts. Is that the only book that she appeared in? --Elonka 22:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the only novel she was in. The other book that we discussed earlier (the one that her original character outline was taken from) was not a novel, but a factual account of how Eastenders was conceptualised by the creators.Gungadin 22:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe she was born at the end of Home Fires Burning, but I'll have to check that. I might be getting it confused with Mark's birth at the end of Swings and Roundabouts. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have brought up this article as a test-case, in the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Policy on plot summaries, as to "how much is too much" for a storyline section. I'm interested to see what other editors think. If there's consensus that the length is acceptable, then I recommend that we continue on, and see about polishing this article up for a run at Featured Article status, meaning to get it up on the Wikipedia mainpage! :) If not, well, we have more editing to do... --Elonka 17:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. My main suggestion is moving the reception and criticism information to a section underneath the plot summary and above the popular culture; it is usually the optimal place to put it, since the reader will have an understanding of the plot when going into the criticism. — Deckiller 17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea Elonka, it would be good to get this up to FA standard if we can Gungadin 20:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't honestly say i'm too keen on the cut down. Yes we don't want things too big but Pauline was in the show for 21 years and had big storylines. I think highly detailed descriptions can be useful especially for the older times when some people may not have seen the storylines for themselves, depending on people's ages. Don't get me wrong, the cut down is good and well done to who did it but i thought it was good as it was and its not as if it was going to get any bigger due to Pauline being gone now. - Sparhelda

I do agree with you, and I think that most people who read this page come to find out about the storylines, but unfortunately those who have less interest in the show/character find the long plot descriptions too much. They just want to get a general idea of the stories, and they are the people who make and enforce the rules on fictional characters. Most people who read wikipedia arent fans of EE, so I suppose we have to make character pages that cater for non-fans as opposed to fans, who will always prefer longer plot descriptions. Most of the storylines are all still included in the storyline section, they are just condensed. Gungadin 14:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. It's a shame about the rules about fictional characters really, i've always felt this project gave the best internet guide to the show. This place gives more knowledge than even the official site itself does. Sparhelda 15:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): don't, couldn't, couldn't, didn't, didn't, couldn't, wasn't, didn't.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Elonka 05:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the "the" in "The early years" - but surely changing contractions will make the article longer, which you're opposed to, and please point out what needs copyediting. I'll look at the dates though. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, I found one unlinked date in a caption, which I linked. When the two remaining points above are addressed, do you suggest an FA nomination? If so, could you do it as an outside contibutor, not from WPEE, as I feel you would be taken more seriously? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to handle the paperwork.  :) Though I'd recommend a real Peer Review first (not just an automated one). I'll go ahead and get that started. --Elonka 16:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review submitted. I recommend that all editors on this article set Wikipedia:Peer review/Pauline Fowler/archive2 in their watchlists. For best results, please feel free to reply directly on that page, noting items that are fixed. For an example of this process, you can see other ongoing peer reviews at Wikipedia:Peer review. Good luck, Elonka 16:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Elonka. One other thing - could you answer my contractions question above please? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

All things being equal, I'd say to expand the contractions, unless they're in a direct quote, in which case they should be left as-is. Or is there a particular one that you think should stay, for some other reason? --Elonka 21:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I was just thinking about the length, I'll start expanding them now. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm too tired now, can;t find any of them! Maybe someone with AWB can attack this? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Was that hint directed at me? :) — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done the contractions. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Past v. present tense

I've been thinking a lot about the question of whether or not the storyline here should be written in past- or present-tense. I can honestly see valid reasons for both sides, and I keep flip-flopping back and forth. Sometimes I think that the idea of making a soap article present tense is bizarre, especially the idea of saying, "Pauline Fowler is a character on EastEnders", because she's not anymore. Then again, I look at the image captions in the article, which do use present-tense, and they look okay to me. It would seem odd to change those to past tense (read them yourself, you'll see what I mean). Maybe because they're associated with an image, which brings the story "alive" again for that one moment. Also, even though soaps run in real-time, they do also run in repeats, via special retrospectives, or on cable channels (like right now, the cancelled soap opera Port Charles is in re-runs on the SOAPnet cable channel, and there are talks to open a channel that runs 24-hour repeats). Now, having said that, I could still see going with past-tense -- I don't have a strong feeling either way, I'm just feeling very ambivalent at the moment. What do other editors think? --Elonka 21:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking all that into consideration, I still feel past tense is more appropriate, due to there not being specific episodes we can cite for something happening, we can only use dates as the air date is generally the date something happened in the soap. Try reading the storylines sections in present tense, it just doesn't work for soap opera characters. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I also dont care particularly, but I do resent that we might be forced to change it by those who just refuse to consider the points we bring up. All works of fiction are not the same. Therefore we should be allowed to choose which tense to use based on what is suitable for the subject. We should not be reprimanded for using past tense when it comes to GA and FA in my opinion. Also, it would sound a little stupid to say "Pauline's husband, Arthur, is made redundant in 1984 and has no prospect for steady employment", especially when the serial actually began after 1984. Gungadin 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:TENSE is a guideline, not a policy. One possible way we could handle it, would be to come up with wording at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas for our own style guidelines, like, "Fictional works are normally written in present tense; however in the case of soap opera characters, it may make more sense to use past-tense since the events occur in real-time. Either method may be used in an article, as long as it is consistent throughout that article." Then, when the situation comes up at GA/FA reviews, we can point people at the WP:SOAPS guideline. We could also try and get wording added to WP:WAF that says, "In most cases, present tense should be used, but there may be exceptions for long-running serials such as soap operas. See the guidelines at WP:SOAPS for more." --Elonka 07:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea, we'd just have to get others to agree to it. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 09:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea too.Gungadin 14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Could someone then please copyedit this article, to be consistent with one tense or the other. If it is desired to argue that past tense is doable, it would be good to show that the system can work throughout at least one article (including the image captions). I personally still think that the captions would look odd in past tense, but I'm open to seeing what it looks like. --Elonka 18:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll do the captions, but I also think they may look a bit odd.

One thing though, an image captures a precise moment in time, so I dont think it is suitable to describe them in past tense. In a picture a person is captured doing something as opposed to having done it. If you took a picture of someone dancing for instance, you wouldnt say "this is a picture of a person who danced" you would say "this is a picture of a person dancing". Gungadin 20:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm away at the moment, so have very little internet access, but you all know my opinion on this - past tense. (Sorry about short replies). -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think past tense actually does work in image captions, although it is a little awkward. I'd say it's acceptable. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

They work fine, I like them. (Back Sunday btw, can't wait, Norfolk's shite.) -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

lol,Gungadin 21:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Present tense works fine, in fact now that I've changed it all, I think it looks better. If I missed any words, please correct me. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I didn't change the lead paragraph. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added some new guideline wording at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#The question of tense, which will hopefully satisfy everyone? Please comment on whether or not you like it, thanks. --Elonka 20:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Present is looking ok. I do prefer it in past tense but i'm not opposed to it being like this. One thing though, arent we now meant to say Pauline Fowler is a fictional character if we're using present? Gungadin 23:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think so, but as I said, I didn't touch the lead paragraph so other parts of it may require changes. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 08:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting this to past tense, as you did this in the middle of discussions when no cnsensus that satisfies everyone has been reached. It loosk awful in present tense. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it does not look awful, and no consensus is needed because present tense is current policy. I've also noted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#The question of tense. Please see my arguments there and at the Manual of Style discussion. You're missing the point of the policy, which is to stylistically differentiate between fictional and real-life events. This is especially important in an article like this that contains both. Take a look at the starter article Alexis Colby, it's easier to assess the past/present use there. I know your used to the past tense uses in soap opera magazine summaries, etc, but those do not contain real-world analysis, etc. TAnthony 15:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Trampikey, I was the one who changed the tenses, and it does not look awful, in fact I think it reads better. And if you want this to reach FA status then you'll have to get used to it being in present tense. Consensus was already reached when the manual of style was written. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, no edit wars

Folks, please, let's not go around reverting each other. Whichever way the article is, let's just leave it and talk about things. The world won't come to an end because the article's in one state or another for a few days while we sort things out and figure where the consensus is. However, I can guarantee that if this article shows a history of edit wars, it's not going to get promoted to FA status. Stability is one of the key requirements for WP:FA. For now, how about we hold a quick Straw Poll, to see where everyone stands? --Elonka 21:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll: Past v. present tense

Please indicate your opinion on the WP:TENSE issue as regards the Pauline Fowler article. This is not a vote, but I would like to get a rough indication to see opinions. Please add your opinion below, in a single paragraph.

• No strong preference, but leaning towards present tense. Personally, I don't care that much either way. But if WP:TENSE says to use Present Tense, and that kind of format will help us to reach WP:FA status, that's fine with me. --Elonka 21:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Present I do prefer past, but it's an uphill struggle trying to get things like this changed, and i'm a little tired of working against the majority of editors who think present tense is better. One of the reasons that Lou Beale failed to get GA was due to incorrect tense, so it obviously has an influence. It's easier just to adhere to the guideline in my opinion.Gungadin 21:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Present tense for fictional portions, as evidenced by my complete lack of restraint in making arguments for it, LOL. However, although I am basically opposed to changing the WP:TENSE guidelines, I will not fight whatever consensus is reached regarding this article. And thanks for your calm head with this, Elonka. — TAnthony 21:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Present tense per guidelines. Although I was originally opposed to this, having seen the article in present tense I now believe it makes more sense to do it this way. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Past tense. (Apologies in advance for any typos - bad keyboard and limited time - also, I'll try to put across a coherent argument without letting emotions get in the way, but I am really angry about this (for reasons I'll explain later)) It is incorrect English to say that events happening over a 22 year span all happened at once (i.e. in the present). For example, to say that "EastEnders begins" is incorrect. EastEnders began. In 1985. The article as it is at the moment (in present tense) reads like EastEnders is a film - with a set end, which we know it is not - it keeps running. It is my strong belief that events that happened in the past in something that runs in real time should also be written in real time (i.e. past tense for things that hapened in the past) - an argument that I have seen all three editors above use at different times. One of the reasons I am angry about this is that certain editors seem to have such a disregard for our language and the way it should be written, that they are willing to forget all about grammar and write this article (which, in my opinion, and as stated by Gungadin elsewhere) is harder to read than it was before, in past tense - just to get this article to FA status - how glory-seeking is that!? Don't get me wrong, it'd be great for this article to get to FA status, but to totally forget about good grammar just because the policy pushers (may I add that WP:TENSE is a guideline, not a policy) say that it needs to be in present tense juts takes the biscuit. WP:TENSE was obviously decided without taking into account real time series - something myself and Elonka have raised on various talk pages to try and change this, but as soon as I have gone away it seems everyone has changed their minds and are happy to have this article written in bad, hard to read English, just to get it to FA status. I say we should have it in readable tense - past - and screw tha FA status. If the voters can't see this is better in past tense, at least we all know it is deserving of FA status anyway - AND readable. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • When you're watching the first episode (which you can sometimes), EastEnders begins. It's not an issue of grammar and it's no more difficult to read now than it was before. Read the whole page through instead of one sentence at a time and it all makes perfect sense. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I for one, and Gungadin, find it harder and less coherent to read. "She begins to rely on Mark more than ever" doesn't make sense for one, as they're both dead, they don't rely on each other anymore, because they can't. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, now I see, you are reading it very literally, as if we are saying that she relies on Mark in 2007. But in context, it is written "In 2002 Pauline receives an anonymous letter" and then "She begins to rely on Mark more than ever" and then "his death in 2004." Certainly whenever a new year begins the year should be noted somewhere in the action to assure clarity, but to anyone reading that section or paragraph, the chronology is clear. I find it interesting that you chose a paragraph with no date reference to make your point. That said, I think we all respect each other's opinions here, and your point is well-taken. TAnthony 18:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• And saying that I read it literally must mean that other readers will read it that way also. To use a paragraph with a date reference: In 2002, Pauline doesn't recieve a letter, because 2002 will never happen again, 2002 was five years ago. It has already happened. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I do think it's just you; what reader will not realize that 2002 already happened? Look, I know you think it's awkward, but that doesn't make you any more right than we are. We will never agree, and there probably is no ":right" and "wrong." But your argument is flawed. TAnthony 18:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• The major flaw in your argument is that you are saying we should write about past events in present tense. We don't write that "two planes fly into the twin towers in 2001" or "Tony Blair is elected in 1997" - these are past events (albeit non-fiction) but are still written in past tense - and as EastEnders runs in eal time, I see no reason why it should be treated differently just because it is fictional. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is exactly the distinction to be made between fiction and reality; real-life 2002 can never happen again, so if Wendy Richards had a baby in 2002 she can never have that baby in 2002 again. But this is a fictional work that exists in perpetuity, like a book, so at any point when you are exposed to it, it occurs "again." Fictional events are not really events that have an expiration. TAnthony 18:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Only certain episodes of EastEnders are ever repeated - and as the serial has not ended yet, it still continues, therefore creates its own history, which happened in its past. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not about repeats per se; your argument is based on the presumption that the "events" occurred on the day they were broadcast, but these are not real events, they never actually occurred, and conceptually they can "occur" again at any time because they exist in a tangible medium. It is exactly as if it were a book, that may or may not ever be read again. Tony Blair can never be elected in 1997 again.

LOL, we can argue this forever, I appreciate that you're as passionate about your opinion as I am! I said I'd stop arguing this point, and so I will. ;) TAnthony 19:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Commentary

As regards the "tense" issue, I'd very much like us to try and find a mutually-agreeable consensus that everyone is willing to accept. Personally, I have to admit that I am not that conversant with the exact grammatical rules of English as regards writing fiction, so could someone perhaps point me to non-Wikipedia sources on the matter? Also, I am curious as to how the issue is handled in books about Pauline Fowler. Where the specific storylines are discussed, are they handled in past- or present-tense? The lead of outside sources is a powerful argument on Wikipedia. --Elonka 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Always in past tense in every book. Fictional and factual. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to the quote in this article, where the character is discussed in EastEnders: The Inside Story, they're using present-tense... Could you please provide some specific sources that do it the other way 'round? Thanks, Elonka 18:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's from the plans for the show. I bought that book yesterday and there are a few pages where it outlines the characters created by Smith and Holland before they were even cast, so it was written at the time when all 23 original characters and the first episode were being planned. Books that talk about torylines in past tense include "20 Years of EastEnders" and "Who's Who in EastEnders" - details of both can be found here. It's also noteworthy that "The Inside Story" is a behind-the-scenes book, so doesn't really touch on the on-screen happenings, other than plans made bfore the series began. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(gathering data) The Episode guides appear to be in present tense.[3] --Elonka 19:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There are 6 years of month by month accounts in one book called the EastEnders handbook. Each month is described in present tense. Another book, Eastenders the first ten years, describes the storylines in past tense, but they are written more like commentary, with real world references, impact and analysis.Gungadin 20:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't the BBC Three documentaries describe events in present tense? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"but they are written more like commentary, with real world references, impact and analysis" - which is what we're trying to provide, no? Also, to answer AnemoneProjectors, the BBC Three documentaries I have to hand (Den's return (2 shows), Sonia and Martin and Beales vs. Mitchells) all use past tense. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the official website uses present tense to describe the action, which is what we're doing in the storylines sections, the commentary with real world references etc is in the other sections, which use past tense. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Present tense still doesn't read well. {{WP:SOAPS]] now says that it is sometimes acceptable to write in past tense, so can we not change it back? Sentences like "and thus lived there her entire life. She was delivered by Dr. Harold Legg, and is the youngest daughter of Albert and Lou Beale." baffle me - they don't make sense. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No reply for four days, so I'm presuming noone objects. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I object. Present tense reads perfectly well and WP:SOAPS is not a Wikipedia guideline or policy. I don't think Wikiprojects should be allowed to make their own rules that go against Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a matter of opinion on whether it reads well or not. I think it reads much better in past tense. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I also object, the consensus above is for present tense, so it should be left as that.Gungadin 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny how everyone ignores me when I ask about it, but when I do it because I get no reply, everyone jumps to it and actually replies. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It was an oversight, I didn't even notice you had asked a question until today. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I didnt notice your post either. To be honest I thought this issue had been resolved due to the fact that the majority of people voted for present tense to be used in this article. Everyone else has said they can live with present tense.Gungadin 21:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image problem?

Is it me or has the Pauline/Lou picture (from the first ever episode) disappeared? It's not showing up on my PC, is it OK for everyone else? Also, nice work Gungadin with the new stuff - I really like the picture of Pauline dead with Betty in it - I didn't realise we didn't have a picture of her dead, lol. I might get a cap from a future episode (I think it's next week or the week after) where Dot scatters Pauline's ashes - does anyone have a problem with that? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That grumpy looking picture of Pauline has gone... perhaps it was a mistake? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The Lou/Pauline picture is still showing up ok on my screen - I didn't change anything in the storyline section. Grumpy Pauline is still there, she has been moved to the criticism section to illustrate cardigans.Gungadin 23:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. If it's the image with the caption "Pauline stands up to her mother in the first episode of the programme (February 1985)" then it's still on my screen too. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll: Do we have consensus?

In regards the question of whether this article should be past- or present-tense, we have discussed the issue extensively, we have requested comment from outside editors at WP:WAF and WP:SOAPS, and we have held a straw poll. We do not have unanimity, but the question is, do we have a consensus? I ask everyone to please read Wikipedia:Consensus, and then indicate your opinion below. This is not your opinion on what should be done with the article, but your opinion on, "Do we have a consensus, and what is that consensus?" Thanks, Elonka 20:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Present tense, with objections noted. Wikipedia does not have a set policy on this kind of thing, but it does have guidelines. The guidelines are to use present tense. Not everyone working on the article agrees with those guidelines, but it seems that most of the editors are willing to abide by them, especially with the possibility of the article meeting FA standards. Valid objections to the present tense format have been raised, but are not sufficient to warrant switching the article to past tense. The consensus is to use present tense. --Elonka 20:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Present - what Elonka said.Gungadin 20:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Past - consensus is when everyone agrees. I don't care about FA status, I care about a coherent article that uses correct English. And I'm prepared to do whatever it takes to make people see that past tense is correct in the instance of soap operas. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry Trampi, but this kind of answer just shows that you're not really listening. I could see you declaring "No consensus," but to insist that the consensus is "Past," is just unreasonable. The key to consensus-building is that all parties have to be willing to discuss things in a reasonable manner, and have to show a willingness to compromise. If one person just stubbornly insists on their own position, and cannot bring forward reasonable and rational arguments as to why their position is better, then there's no reason to continue discussing things with them in good faith. --Elonka 23:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Family relationships

One of the FA reviewers brought up a concern about the extensive list of relationships at the bottom of the article. I agree with him that it's not really encyclopedic to include a list of all of Pauline's nephews and cousins, and I pruned the list down to the recommendation at WP:SOAPS, which is immediate family plus grandchildren. After I removed the information, the FA reviewer indicated his support. However, I then noticed that the EE WikiProject's guidelines are to include the cousin/nephew information. I still think that listing those names is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but before we get into another edit war here: What do other editors think? Do you think we should list all relations, or just the most important ones? --Elonka 10:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

All. As I explained on WT:WPEE, the show has many complex relationships, and all should be listed - for example, Nellie Ellis - not many people would know that she was related to Pauline, and the fact that Ian is her nephew should be there - as they were so close in the show. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to include major relationships. Ian is mentioned twice in the article, so it would make sense to include him. I don't think Nellie is mentioned though. --Elonka 11:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to fight a losing battle on two talk pages. See WT:WPEE for my reply. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OMG, Second cousin once removed?! That is called OVERKILL. I know you're going for accuracy, but come on. We don't need to see every person connected to Pauline on one page; you should click on her relatives' articles to see the more distant relations, etc. A family tree would solve it, but this list is ridiculous. TAnthony 05:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As I have said, the relatives article doesn't contain the same amount of detail. If we're going to list her family does it make any difference if we list them all? I for one am interested in the family relationships within the show, and I know others are too. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think most of the list can stay, but I would get rid of several names at the bottom of the list, if they are neither immediate family, nor names that are mentioned anywhere else on the page. For example, I agree with TAnthony that listing "second cousin once-removed" is unnecessary. I also think that some of the names are unnecessary, considering that the characters are so minor that they don't even have their own Wikipedia bios. If someone really wants to know who Pauline's aunts were, they can look at the relationships pages of Pauline's parents, where the siblings are appropriate to mention. --Elonka 14:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but I don't think users who have not even seen the programme should decide which characters are important to Pauline or not, because they dont have any idea. The second cousin once removed was actually an important character in Pauline's life, who lived with her for many years. She had a bigger role than most of Pauline's siblings and many of her other relatives too. Nellie Ellis was known to Pauline as "Auntie Nellie". She was mentioned in the storylines section, but she was removed in the cut. I think we should list them all or none at all, because deleting one or two names is not going to make any difference. Those who appeared in the serial should definitely remain anyway. In fact I'd be more in favour of getting rid of the ones who never actually appeared, or were just mentioned in spin off novels.

However, this issue has already been discussed on the project talk page and the majority of users seem in favour of the section remaining in tact. It seems that some users refuse to give up on something until they get exactly what they want. Similar to the tense issue, we have to go with the majority on this, even if it goes against our personal opinions. The article appears to be passing FA with the list complete, so I dont really see what the problem is.Gungadin 16:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's please keep the discussion focused on the article, and not on the editors. As for Auntie Nellie, it seems like the best way to handle this, would be to add a sentence or two about her relationship into the storyline section, and then it would be appropriate to list her in the relationships section. Though I'm in agreement that we should get rid of the names of those who never actually appeared, or were only mentioned in spin-off novels. In those cases, I think it's sufficient to list the names at The Beale/Fowler family, rather than on each individual character page. For example, the list of cousins at the Nellie Ellis page is definitely excessive. --Elonka 16:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they appeared or not, they're still her realtives, and I think that if we list one, we should list them all - all WPEE articles do this, I don't see why this should mak eany difference, especially as noone on the FA nom has any problem with it... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons that I'm so insistent on this, is because the Pauline Fowler article is going to be held up as an example to other soap opera character articles, not just those of the EastEnders. Having overly-long relationship lists is a real problem in some of the U.S. articles, which occasionally have lists that are longer than everything else in the article combined! For an example of the places where we're edit-warring about this, see Jacob Martin Spencer, a baby that was born recently in GH. The character hasn't even had a single line other than burps and cries, and has only interacted with a handful of current characters, but already has a lengthy relationship list that includes such items as "paternal second cousin twice removed; deceased", "maternal adoptive great-uncle", or "paternal adoptive first half-cousin". I could also provide plenty of other examples, such as Lila Alcazar, another new baby. This is why the WP:SOAPS guidelines were created, to limit the lists to immediate family plus significant relationships. As I said before, I think it's okay to list some cousins or nephews if they were key parts of the character's storyline, but we should not list every relationship. --Elonka 18:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

All the debating

I've been reading all these debates and they look like they could go on forever and more could be created, this article just seems to be a catalyst for discussion. I'm all for discussion and new ideas but everyone seems split on it, theres good points for each side and people keep coming up with new arguements, it really does literally seem like it could go on forever. Is there a solution to all of it because eventually a decision on all of the debates does need to be made, but any decision would make some people unhappy.--Sparhelda 19:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Block me? Lol. I just disagree with people going back on their previous arguments just because they want the glory of having an FA article. In my opinion it shows weakness of character, which is why I've stuck to my guns about my opinions, and I'm never going to change them just to get the article to FA status. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep I agree with you. I don't see why the article needed to be changed as much as it has in the first place, it was a good length that did Pauline's 22 years on the show justice. Now its pretty small and vague plus this present tense stuff is totally out of theme with the other articles. Look at Phil's article, his storyline descriptions are pretty big and detailed and he wasn't even in the show until 1990, Pauline was in it from the beginning and shes gone whereas Phil is still in it and looks like he has no intentions of leaving. As you say it is all about the glory of having an FA article.--Sparhelda 19:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agreed that it didn't need to go into as much detail on the last two sections, but I think the rest was fine. But I let that one go. Then they changed it to present tense, which reads awfully (these are my own opinions), doesn't make sense, and is just going along with something to get glory. And I've stuck to my guns on that one, but I just can't see the point in fighting anymore when I'm clearly outnumbered and my opinion means nothing anyway. Now they're trying to remove half of the family section like we have on every other EastEnders article just because one of the FA people pointed it out! Don't get me wrong, it'll be a nice achievement if this reaches FA status, but I disagree with the people suddenly changing their minds, flaking in debates etc. just because they're so obsessed with it reaching FA status. It would've been nice for the article to retain some familiarity within the other articles in the project, but apparently it ALL has to change to meet FA status! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I really resent your comments. I think refusal to compromise is more indicative of weakness of character. Being stubborn does not mean you have a strong character, it just means you're not mature enough to accept that you can't have everything your own way. It is also selfish to expect others to comply to your demands just because you disagree with aspects that others are willing to live with. I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason i would like FA is because I have put a lot of work into the article, adding all the OOU stuff, most of the refs, images and most of the storyline section too. I would like to see that hard work rewarded and I dont appreciate people indicating that this is a bad thing. It was little more than a few paragraphs before i did the additions and even I have got used to the plot cuts and the present tense. Having FA will reflect well on the project, as it will be the first EE article and soap opera chatacter that has managed to get it.

The alterations to tense just dont bother me enough to continue arguing against. I am also not bothered whether the family section is there or not to be honest, and that has nothing to do with FA. I've always found them irritating to type out and I think it would be easier just to link to the family tree articles, but I have never cared enough to say anything. I'm not saying you shouldnt fight for it to remain if you want to, my suggestion on the project talk page was only to give another way of including them. I was trying to be helpful.

FA aside, the reason certain aspects of EE articles are changing Sparhelda is because we are trying to follow Wikipedia's policies. The EE project has gone against many of Wikipedias guidelines/policies for a long time, and it was only a matter of time until it was noticed. It appears that time has ran out, because several of our articles were tagged for deletion today (Christmas in EastEnders, Who Shot Phil?, Storylines of EastEnders (2000s)), and i'm sure this project will come under even more scrutiny now. If people are interested in seeing EE articles kept, then we have to follow Wikipedia's guidelines--Gungadin 21:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've also put a lot of work into the article, but I'm not going to change all of the hard work just so the article can get FA status. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Trampikey, if you disagree strongly with the consensus, then by all means do proceed with another step in WP:DR. But sitting at the talkpage and attacking other editors is not helpful. Also, edit-warring is a completely ineffective way of getting changes implemented. The proper way to get a disputed change in, is to bring it up on the talkpage, and build a consensus among other editors. If you can't build a consensus, then accept it and move on to some other issue. Wikipedia is a massive project, with literally millions of editors. It's not possible to please everyone, so, just like in real-life, it's necessary to discuss and compromise and occasionally "go along to get along." I recommend that you choose your battles wisely, as a longterm strategy. As Gungadin said, if you show a willingness to compromise, that's a mark of maturity. And here's another way to think of it: If you dig your heels in on every single thing, then you may get a reputation as someone who's argumentative, which makes it even less likely that others will listen to you with respect in the future. However, if you show that you're willing to give in on some things, then you get a better reputation as someone who's willing to work with the group, and then when another dispute comes up in the future, you may be able to call in favors, like, "Hey, remember when we did it your way last time? Well, how about we do it my way this time?" Please, think hard about what you most care about, and decide which battles you're willing to fight, and which battles you're willing to give in on, with an eye towards maybe winning the entire war instead. You've worked hard on this article, and have earned respect for that work. You've earned "emotional capital." But when you attack other editors, you lose that capital. For best results, try to stay at a positive balance, eh? --Elonka 21:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say two things. 1) Although I did change the article to present tense as it would be a problem for reaching FA status, I was also curious to see exactly how it read in present tense and my decision to keep it that way was not to do with FA status, it was to do with that fact that once I had done it, I realised there was nothing wrong with it, in fact it was probably better because it was in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. 2) Trampikey, over the years (year? lol) you have shown yourself to be rather stubborn, especially when I wanted to create an article for minor characters, something I didn't do just to keep you happy. Articles for minor characters have since been created because you thought it would be better for us to do it rather than be told that we have to. Just an observation. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Trampikey, I admire your dedication to, and hard work on, this article, but I do see the stubbornness and refusal to compromise that AnemoneProjectors notes in relation to this article. I take offense to your suggestion that everyone here is "out for glory" because you don't agree with their suggestions for improvement. The "requirements" for FA status were put in place by a consensus of experienced people who agreed on what makes a good article. If an article achieves that status, it is because it is well written and concise, and that is the goal. But I find that in many of your comments you imply that you know better than all of these people. And you obviously take any edits to your hard work very personally. I do not mean this as a personal attack, because I think you are a valuable editor. But I am sure that this article will probably never rise in status because you will not allow it to be improved. TAnthony 05:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Elonka: I know where I'm beaten, so no, I don't want to porceed with WP:DR, thanks, I'm only sitting bitching on the talk page because someone else raised the issue and I know there's nothing I can do about it. I know it's the immature thing to do, but I needed to let off steam, and for that I apologise.

AnemoneProjectors: The fact that you thought it read better is your opinion, and is not an opinion I share, however, my opinion obviously doesn't matter. And, to address the minor lists issue - I was initially opposed to creating a list because redirects (at the time) couldn't redirect to a section of an article, just to the article, and it would have looked crappy. However, now that redirects can go to a section, and we are able to include more characters than we ever would have been able to with separate articles, I like the lists. It isn't solely because we would have been told to merge them, although that was a factor, but because other things changed my mind.

TAnthony: I looks like this article is going to rise in status anyway, if you have seen it's FA nom. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I forgot your reasons for the change regarding lists of minor characters and I apologise for bringing it up :) — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

FA nom

Are we allowed to support the nomination? I did but none of you have, so am I allowed to do that? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything that says we're not allowed to, so might as well! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are supposed to say if you are a significant contributer Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Supporting and objecting (bullet 2).Gungadin 17:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, I better say that then. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct, you're welcome to participate, but should identify yourself as a contributor or nominator. For example, you could say "Support (as contributor)" or "Support. I have to admit that I'm biased as one of the contributors, but I agree that this is a fantastic article... etc." --Elonka 18:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna vote too. Does anyone think that the pre serial appearances should have remained in their own section? because it includes OOU stuff, and is in past tense etc. It also makes the storylines section appear bigger than they were, which may get a negative reaction.Gungadin 18:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks better in an overall "storyline" section, but will go along with consensus on this one. --Elonka 18:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy for it to stay in the Storylines section - things that happened in the books are storylines afterall. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The past tense bits are only the bits that happened outside the time-frame of the books anyway. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

This article was criticised on the FA review for having too many images and non-specific rationales. So which images should we exclude? I got rid of 3 that I thought we could do without. The one where Mark tells her he has AIDS; the one where she's at Mark's funeral and the one where she's shouting at Lou, because it wasn't a very good quality image. I dont know about the others, the Arthur's bench one probably isnt needed and would be better in Arthur's article, but i'll wait to see what everyone else thinks.

btw I also merged the heartache and Arthur's demise sections.Gungadin 12:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The bench, taking Arthur home, visiting Den and the cardigans picture probably aren't essential. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though I was the one that requested it, I would support the removal of the bench picture. It would be nice if we had a pic of her death scene with the bench in it though, and then we could get two birds with one stone. --Elonka 16:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I remember there wasnt a good picture of her dead near the bench. It concentrated more on the xmas tree. She rested on the bench brifly before she fell down, but I dont think there was a shot of her actually dead near the bench.

I will remove the den pauline pic, the bench and the cardigan one for now. I think it would be good to keep the arthur/pauline one in to illustrate them together. I'll see what the reviewer says.Gungadin 17:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The frying pan picture illustrates them together, lol. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but you cant even see his face. If they still want more removed I'll remove one or the other, and possibly the Dot one. I dont think 8 is too much though, ive seen more fairuse pics in FAs before.Gungadin 20:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the reviewers are making us jump through hoops and probably won't switch from oppose to support anyway... Wikipedia politics are nasty. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

lol, i'm also feeling that way. I definitely wont be bothering with another FA nomination in the future, the little gold star isnt worth the aggravation. It's a very sadistic process, like dangling carrots on a stick. We make all the changes then they oppose anyway, but I suppose we have been motivated to improve it as a result. It's the storylines causing problems, but the reviewers comments arent consistent. Some have deemed them acceptable, one says write them OOU, another says condense to a few paragraphs and then another suggests we remove them entirely. I was reading Captain America, which one reviewer referred to as a "top class article" and said that it avoided in universe writing alltogether. But that clearly isnt true if you read the "Fictional character biography" section. Also it alternates between in universe and OOU, which we had been told was incorrect by one reviewer. So, i'm a bit confused really. I dont think it's possible to please everyone, so it's more important to please the majority in my opinion. Oh well, at least when it fails we will be able to revert all the changes that we disagreed with, lol.Gungadin 19:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we will, lol. And the star's not ever gold, it's bronze. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally i think all the images were good but i suppose so many compromises are having to be made to get it to the FA status. This whole FA status thing better be worth it because the article has been changed so much. --Sparhelda 19:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well i didnt like getting rid of the images either, but I think the reviewer was right, it did have too many. I will miss grumpy Pauline in her cardy and Wooly hat pauline the most, lol. If you think any of the removed pics were essential Sparhelda, then let us know which ones and maybe we can do some swapping around.Gungadin 22:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Storyline

Just as a suggestion, might there be a way that we could get the best of both worlds? Currently we have an excellent "background" section that has some storyline elements, and everyone seems to approve of that part. Then we have a long "Storyline" section which most people like, but a few people are against. Would it be possible, perhaps, to merge the two? Keep all the information that's in the Storyline section, but merge it into the background section? So we'd end up with basically the same amount of information, but would have gotten rid of some duplication, and would have everything in "Background" instead of "Storyline." Would that work? --Elonka 19:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a simple heading reorganization; it shouldn't be an issue with the editors of this page. — Deckiller 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't sound too disruptive, and also if it was written out of universe like the "Background" section, it would be in past tense :) -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's too far into the FA process to make any drastic changes like this at last minute... leave it as it is and we'll look at changes if it failes the FA nom, eh? :) -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It could be done, but wouldnt we need secondary references and commentary for everything if it is to follow the same format? This might be difficult to find. Everything would have to be rewritten in an OOU perspective and it will take a lot of work. It would also be out of sync with all the other EE articles. Were you intending to make the information chronological? If so then we would need to break up the sections in "character development", which might mean that it wont flow so well. I just re-read the storylines section, and it isnt that long at all. I dont see why some of the reviewers have such a problem with it. Seems to me like it's just their personal preference, rather than a fault in the article (which isnt really fair in my opinion). However, if everyone's willing to do the work then i'm not opposed to the proposed change.Gungadin 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Trampikey's last comment. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've merged the preserial part from the "storylines" into the top sections. Most of it was already mentioned in the "background" section anyway. It has reduced the storylines section a little bit at least.Gungadin 14:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I still maintain that we should leave this until after the FA nom. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I intend to leave the rest, that bit i merged was just repetitive though. It was already mentioned in greater detail in the book quote in section 1.1. How long does FA noms take to close? It has been ages.Gungadin 16:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It depends how controversial they are. Because of the lengthy storyline section on Pauline Fowler, and the amount of articulate (and recent) disagreement on the FA nom, it keeps getting skipped on the "promote/fail" cycles. It would be nice if we could actually reach a consensus with the opposers rather than just agreeing to disagree. Then again, there might be enough other articulate "support" comments for it to pass. It's going to be a close decision, so Those Who Decide (meaning probably Raul654) are probably waiting until the conversation dies down. You can also look at the other FA candidates to see how they're "aging" in comparison. --Elonka 20:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

FA status

(trying to untangle things) It appears that the original FA nom was not successful.[4][5] Sorry folks! As part of that, the bot appears to have created a new FA page/redirect, in place for when we try again.

It seems like it was a very very close thing, judging by the several weeks that the nom stayed open. It is my recommendation that we pay close attention to the "oppose" comments and see how we can further improve the article, in preparation for another try. We should also discuss things here at the Talk page, rather than the new FA redirect page. Accordingly, I am copy/pasting in some of the comments that had accidentally accumulated there, to here. --Elonka 18:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per these reasons (which were established on the first FAC).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Storylines" and "Character Development" contain virtually the same information, the difference is that "C-D" is written in OOU, while the other is written as if it actually happened. They should be merged together, or the "Storylines" should be dropped completely. The reasoning for this is that "Character Development" already discusses the major events in the character's fictional life, and attributes real world context to them. Anything else would be minor (other than to fans of the show). Fictional character articles should not recount a character's entire life as if it were a biography. The storylines section takes up 1/3 of the entire article, with much of it being not only a rehash of episodes but a rehash of the "C-D" section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Infobox issues. She isn't real, DOB and DOD are not relevant to anyone but a fan, and articles should be written for casual readers who know nothing of the character. You already state when her last appearance is, and have a section discussing her departure from the show. The in-universe perspective here is not essential to understanding the character. That goes for the "Deceased" in marital status. First, you can't have a "dead" marital status. You can be a widow(er), married, single, etc...but not dead. Again, in-universe information not essential to understanding the character (as per WP:WAF). Occupation? The only time Lauderette is mentioned in the article is when events take place there. I have no idea what she does there, or how that has anything to do with her character (real world context). It is not essential to understanding her. Family. You have the family listed in the infobox, and then an entire section at the bottom listing all the family (not to mention a template at the very bottom doing it again). Other than how they are connected to her fictionally, they lend no understanding to the character. I don't know her brother from her mother when it comes to understanding her. Let the template at the bottom list the family (it even has a link to a family tree), both areas of inclusion are completely unnecessary and strictly there for fans.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not really a fan of the family section either. The issue about removing/reducing it has been raised before, but more people were in favour of it being left in tact. Family sections appear in all soap articles not just EastEnders ones, so a consensus would need to be reached in order to implement permanent change. Otherwise changes just get reverted continuously.Gungadin 14:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The ibox - date of death was included as sometimes a character's death differs from their last appearance (their corpse is in another episode sveral days later for instance). This is actually OOU information, because we are using the date their supposed death aired, as opposed to the date it is meant to be in the actual soap. For instance one day in the serial can be spread out over several episodes, all airing on different days. I agree that it is silly to have marital status as deceased. Would you have a problem if the information was altered to say character dob, or episode of death, or something similar? I do think it is wrong to assume that the character's age is not relevant to anyone but fans, just because it is not relevant to you.Gungadin 14:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • To be FA, what a simple majority of fans say shouldn't over rule FA criteria. If this articles wants to be FA it needs to look past what fans of the show want, otherwise, fictional character articles would be simple biographies. Also, remember WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you want to set an example for these other soap articles. What other fictional soap character articles are featured? From my recollection, this was the first to have a shot at actually achieving that status. For that to work, it shouldn't (pardon my wording) stoop to the level of lessor articles when it has a bona fide chance of been recognized as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. As for the infobox, since saying she's dead and saying she left on a certain date do not actually correlate with each other in that infobox, then it isn't essential. Discussing it in prose would be. The fact that a corpse is present episodes later is not, and cannot really be, conveyed in the infobox. That is prose material. The character doesn't have a DOB, she isn't real. That's the problem. You cannot treat fictional people as if they are real, that's part of WP:WAF. In fiction, anything can be retconned, that's why deaths and births are not used. Timelines could shift for some unknown reason. What does her age have to do with her? This is why guidelines state that infobox information needs to be essential to the character. How is her age essential to understanding her, especially since she isn't real? Look at the other fictional character articles that have reached FA status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that some of the issues raised are a matter of wider policy for soap/fiction articles. I'd hope that some discussion can produce a solution. If anyone wants to further address my oppose comments on the FAC, I'm happy to debate. Ideally, someone will have a brainwave about how to address the tension between including detailed storyline information, and not going beyond the guidelines in WP:WAF. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 11:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there are some examples that show it can be done. Jabba the Hutt, Padme Amidala, Palpatine, Jason Voorhees, Superman (he has 60+ years of fictional life).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that those are valuable examples of what has been considered FA work for a fictional character (and I think I referenced several when discussing my oppose). I think that a long-running soap character has unique issues that some of those characters don't, but some of the comic characters have a similarly long and weighty history. I'd like to hear if any of the editors of this article find those examples of use. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 11:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Got one. Bernard Quatermass is the only fictional television character I could come across in the FA list. I did come across a Doctor Who extraterrestrial robot, but I figured this would be better. Appeared in four or five different serials, just not consistently like Pauline. But the point of it is more for an understanding of structure and how they wrote up the fictional elements. That the character's "appearances" are discussed only on their major points, and it's usually summarized. The idea should be that we have other articles that discusses the events of these episodes, so we shouldn't be giving so much detail to something that should be covered on another page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

When discussing the Storylines section, I initially suggested using summary style to cut down the amount of pure plot in the article. However, it was pointed out that a pure plot article would likely have copyright issues. Would a way round this be to use a list of episodes? List of The Sopranos episodes is a featured list, for example. Admitedly it would be a huge job, but once it was done, it would serve as a reference for the whole show. J.Winklethorpe ^talk 18:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There isn't already a "List of" for this show? I could have sworn there was. You can have a LOE that contains a synopsis of the episodes. My first problem with it is that the "Storylines" are almost redundant to the "Character development" section. They hit some of the key points within each other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's been over three thousand episodes. I suppose it would be possible but very difficult, especially as it would only contain dates, not episode titles (there aren't any). — AnemoneProjectors (?) 20:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Break them up by series(seasons...I don't know how they are referred to). That's usually the best way..or decades.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, there is a list of storylines already - I hadn't realised. It's by decades and years, as the show runs continuously (to my knowledge - has there ever been a break?) J.Winklethorpe ^talk 20:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, there has never been a break. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 20:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

How many episodes a decade? You could even break it up by every 5 years. There are different ways, and it varies depending on how you write it up. If it's a basic LOE with a synopsis of what happens, then it's fine. You have to remember that WP:SIZE is based on readable prose, so even if you have 200 episodes on one page, the size will be scewed because of all the code that gets counted. I know that they are basically continuous, but don't they get like winter breaks or some kind of vacation. I mean, they aren't new episodes every day, 365 days (minues weekends) are they? Don't they show reruns or something else for a month or so to give the actors a break?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont think a list of episodes would be possible. There has apparently been 3415 episodes as of today, going back all the way to 1985. There is currently 4 episodes a week, every week, with no breaks (it airs 52 weeks a year and there is talk about adding a 5th weekly episode). The lists would be huge and details of each episode are not available to my knowledge. This is the major issue with soaps. The reason why soap character plot sections are always longer than those of film/comic/tv series characters is because we cant link to a more descriptive episode/series page, as some other series do. What we tried to do was summarise the plots by decade, however those articles have been nominated for deletion several times because they are purely plot summary, which apparently violates WP:PLOT.

It would be possible to summarise the in-universe stuff further in this article, but I think that people may still complain about repetition of information. The only other option is to try and find commentary for all the in-universe stuff, rewrite it and work it into the "development" section. I have reservations about doing this, as we would be setting a standard for the eradication of IU plot summary in soap character pages. There are hundreds of soap character pages from American, Australian and English soaps that all contain an in-universe plot section. If this format were to be followed, then it would mean having to completely re-write them all, instead of just adding to them. This was why we had hoped that a combination of in-universe and out-universe would be deemed acceptable. However, I would be willing to do this in this article if everyone agrees to it.Gungadin 21:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem. The page just had a big ol' summary. It could have atleast attributed some writers and directors to the shows. Do they only have one writer and director for the series? Is it like all other shows where there's someone new each episode. There shouldn't be IU plot summaries anyway. It should all be written in past tense, not present tense. It happened, it isn't on going. My major concern is the redundancy of the two sections. Right now, I think those should, in the least be merged, because you'd pretty much talking about the same thing. Let's not talk about trimming anyhing but what gets repeated (e.g. her death is talked about in both "leaving the show" and actual fictional death). We can worry about making it more summary style later. Let's discuss getting the redundancy out. As for the other soap character articles, other than that guy I linked above (who isn't a soap character, but some science fiction character) this is the only other television character up for FAC. I have no doubt that when the first film article reached FA status, they had to rewrite a lot of pages. I mean, heck...look at any FA film article, and then go pick another one at random that isn't. They look a lot different. Things change, and right now this article is working it's way toward being the shining star the others will follow. The same problem you are discussing is one that the Wikipedia: WikiProject Buffyverse people share. Many incorporate just a tad too much IU information, though from what I've seen, they are a bit worse, in that they will fight with each other about what gets included because it isn't "canon". I don't know if that happens here, but that should never be an issue. Fictional articles shouldn't care about canon, they shouldn't be written solely for the fans. This article is far better than most, I can say that. We just need to work together, and get some more outside opinions (preferable people who are not connected to the Television WikiProject) so that this can be an article anyone can read and understand. We're all here on the talk page, so I would assume that means we're all here to help get this article into FA status, and not try and keep it out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The writers and directors alternate every episode. I tried to include crew information in the 'character development' section when a particular episode is discussed. However, the 'storylines' section is summarised, and it rarely concentrates on one specific episode. For instance, the "Heartache" section covers over six years of Pauline's prominent storylines for that period. One sentence may contain plot elements from various episodes, spanning weeks and sometimes months. Therefore it wont be easy to attribute specific writers and directors to much of the material in the prose, but it probably can be done in parts.Gungadin 23:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And weeding out the redundant areas? I mean, what needs to be said in "her death" that isn't, or could not be said in "Her departure"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the repeated bits can be removed and the missing details can be merged into the development section. I dont mind working on that, but I will wait til I get the opinions of some of the other contributers before going ahead with it. I'm contemplating whether or not to make the information chronological in the "character development section". It isn't at the moment, but if all the information is going to be extended, then it may make sense to make it chronological and give more specific headings as opposed to "other storylines".Gungadin 18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with some of what Bignole has stated. Good analysis. As for including some of Pauline Fowler's family in her character infobox and again below in this article, I went ahead and put in an internal link beside the title of Family in her character infobox as See Family.

And on the topic of present tense, I'm sure that you know, Bignole, but plot summaries at Wikipedia are preferred to be written in present tense, as also seen with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Tense. I used to have a bit of a problem with wording a plot summary in present tense when I was first informed that presnt tense is peferred here at Wikipedia for plot summaries, but now I'm used to it. Flyer22 15:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but it still reads like a biography, instead like a fictional event. As for the family. I still don't understand the purpose. My question has always been "how do they lend to the understanding of the character?" They're listed in the Soap box just two sections down, so the redundancy wasn't just about the infobox. Look at Padme Amidala. There isn't a section devoted to a fictional family for her. They're mentioned where appropriate, and her children alone (Luke Skywalker and Leia Organa) are two of the most recognizable fictional characters in history. The idea of avoiding lists is because they generally don't provide context to the rest of the article, and are breeding grounds for more unsolicted listing in the article. I just don't know the purpose of these characters in relation to this one. I get that they are fictionally related, but I don't get how that has any bearing on this character in the real world. If something important happened to this character, in relation to one of her fictional family members, then it should be stated as such, and probably not simply in a section titled "Family" but in that "Character development" section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Bignole, except for length, I don't see that the way that the plot summary of this article is designed as too much different than the plot of the 1978 Halloween film article, which is a featured article here on Wikipedia or the plot of the Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith article, which is also a featured article here on Wikipedia, or some other featured fictional articles. I'm not basically stating that other plots similar to the style of the plot of the Pauline Fowler article existing on Wikipedia means that other aticles should be able to exist in that same way as well, but what I am stating is that with even some featured articles having their plot in that similar style, it does appear that this style is accepted in a lot of aspects of Wikipedia. This article's plot is titled Storylines and it states how EastEnders begins and then gives the plot of the Pauline Fowler character, I don't see that as necessarily being an in-universe style. I see it as just relaying the plot; fictional events. And then other areas of an article are what need real-world context. Flyer22 05:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• But you're probably talking about how the plot of this article uses dates, such 1979 and so on when relaying what happened to these characters without mentioning words such as the storyline or the plot. Well, soap opera characters' lives do go along with the real-world timeline. It's sort of like writing: Padmé Amidala makes her second appearance in Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones (2002), except with soap opera characters, they are using the date only and not stating something such as Pauline Fowler is written to have done this in 1979. Flyer22 05:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• • The point I'm making is that the section that deals strictly with IU information, contains much redundancy to the "Character Development" section. There is no reason to be repeating oneself, especially since the Character development section is written to start from her first appearance to her departure. It's the same timeline, and discusses the same key moments in her life.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, I agree, that the Storylines section of this article is much redundant to its Character development section; that's mainly what I agree with you on concerning this article. But as for the Storylines section dealing strictly with in-universe information, will you point out how it mainly differs (besides length) from the plot of the 1978 Halloween film article? You're great with plots of articles, as witnessed with your work on the Jason Voorhees article, and I'd like you to elaborate a little on how the plot of this article is mainly focused on in-universe moments as opposed to the two or one of the two above examples that I mentioned. I mean, plots relay in-universe information, of course, and I want to better get a grasp as to what you mean about this plot being mainly in-universe. Flyer22 22:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • I recognize that this article is going to be different. You cannot compare something as complex as a character appearance (at least a not a major character) to that of a film's plot. Halloween only has to focus on that one film. I think the issue comes from the fact that soaps play out in the "real world" timeline. Pauline, unlike Jason, doesn't have a set number of appearances (e.g. Jason has appeared in 11 films, and the plot lines for most of those were pretty much identical, not much to elaborate on). The catch is that, and this is an assumption on my part because I'm not familiar with soaps, soap operas don't have "episode titles". I'll pull this line from the text, On Boxing Day 1991 Mark finally decides to tell his parents that he is HIV positive.[55] Pauline is distraught, but after a difficult period she comes to accept Mark's condition - This attribution of a date to the event is what makes it come off like it's supposed to be real. You could shorten it to simply, "Pauline comes to terms with the knowledge that her son, Mark, is HIV positive". Really, it's written rather well in the "Character development" section already. It's hard to say "this should be written like so," when a good portion of the information is already stated in another section. My issue was the fact that the section duplicated information, but did it in a way that it came off as if it was real. It was the article was saying "here is the real world information on these events, and here is a fictional biography that details the same thing, just does it in a way that make it sound like it really happened". I think if the two sections are merged, it will be easier to identify something that may need word tweaking. Right now, the problem lies in the duplication of information (one side in OOU, and the other in IU). I have a feeling that once (if) they are merged together, the problem most likely won't be present.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Ah, as mentioned above, I felt that the use of dates was/is one of your concerns. Would you still have an issue with dates being used in that way, if when using dates, it uses words such as is written to or the storyline? Like, for example, using On Boxing Day 1991, the storyline plays out with Mark finally deciding to tell his parents that he is HIV positive.[55] Pauline is distraught, but after a difficult period she comes to accept Mark's condition. Sometimes, with soap opera character storylines, I find using dates important, mainly because, as noted above, soap opera characters don't have appearances and there are no titles for soap opera episodes, unless you count how they are titled by numbers, so using dates pin-point instances as to follow when the fictional character did something, since they follow the real-world timeline. Maybe if the use of dates were cut back within the Storylines section of this article, and when dates are used, to make those instances in which they are used within a sentence less in-universe, it works quite well. As for what you stated about the redundancy of the Storylines section of this article as compared to the Character development section of this article as if saying, "Here is the real-world information on these events, and here is a fictional biography that details the same thing, just does it in a way that make it sound like it really happened"...yeah, I completely understand what you mean as well on that matter, of course. Flyer22 06:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'd have to see it after everything was taken care of, because I realized after I used it, that my example with Mark is already well summarized in the other section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)