Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

EastEnders off set episodes

Ive been working on this article, adding sourced analysis, critique and bits on filming and production. It's not fully referenced yet, but the reason for its nomination no longer stands up in my opinion as it is not just unreferenced plot summary.Gungadin 16:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've wanted to see this article given more OOU material for ages (hence what I did with Dot and Jim's visit to Kent) so well done. You really are a star and I don't know where this project would be without you, Gungadin! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh thanku, that's a very sweet thing to say. You me and Trampikey have all contributed loads to the project, it's just a shame we've come across so many nasty editors recently, who just seem to get off on criticising and deleting articles just to be sadistic.

On an unrelated note I noticed today that our Pauline Fowler article has now been listed on the manual of style as an exemplary article. So at least this might make us feel that our efforts weren't completely wasted when it fails FA :) Gungadin 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this project would be nothing without Gungadin - there aren't enough words or barnstars to describe how grateful I am for her presence on Wikipedia! These AfD nominations unfortunately force us to encounter some of the worst Wikipedia users, it's unfortunate for us, because I don't think we're "fansite"-ish, as we're portrayed by certain people, we just have expertise in this certain field. One thing about the Pauline article - they're trying to get rid of the family section. That will piss me off so much if they bully their way into getting that removed, as it's a project-wide thign that we have on EastEnders-related articles, and I don't think Pauline should be an exception... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

lol @ your recent comment on the who shot phil AFD Trampikey.

You guys are being very sweet today. thanku. Re Pauline. I've given up on trying to improve the article anyway. One person objected based on minor grammar issues in the lead, and said that it is indicative that the whole article needs copyediting. Clearly they didn't even read past the lead to find out. I think it will fail, either that or it will remain an FAC forever cos it's been there ages. So, I dont see any point removing the family section, unless you want to remove it for the time being and then reinclude when it fails. It's up to you though, i'm not bothered about getting FA anymore.Gungadin 23:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If Phallus-face gets his way and the off-set article is deleted, then we can perhaps look into splitting EE production into an article on its own and merging some of the off-set info into the article. What do you think?Gungadin 18:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Way to be civil, Gungadin. --Phirazo 23:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Me and my typos.Gungadin 00:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Debates

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storylines of EastEnders (2000s) (Eastenders storylines nomination) Keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who Shot Phil? (2nd nomination) Keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EastEnders off set episodes No Consensus

--Phirazo 19:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Woo! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yawn!!! yet again... (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 23) Gungadin 23:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of AFD if this happens anyway? Plus nobody is informed of deletion reviews. Anyway I'm honestly not that bothered because storylines are mentioned in characters' pages anyway. — AnemoneProjectors (I can't help it if I've got a natural curl to my hair!) 17:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, I was gonna suggest that we should scrap the storylines actually. I'm tired of fighting for them. It's also going to be tons of work to rewrite and I just dont have the time to do it at the moment. Do you think we should just redirect to History article even if it's kept? I think it will continue to be put up for deletion even if I rewrite them. The same people will get involved, and we will get criticised for using BBC sources etc and repeating information. I would prefer to work on the character articles to be honest, adding the information there. We can always add a brief paragraph on each decade to the history article. Talk about writers, execs, impact and the general style of the programme at the time. Like EE was said to be "gritty" and realistic during the 80s, and more sensational during the 90s, and criticised heavily during the 00s etc.Gungadin 17:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a really good idea to me. — AnemoneProjectors (I can't help it if I've got a natural curl to my hair!) 19:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

All closed as "do nothing" this morning Stephenb (Talk) 08:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Navigational templates

As we decided not to have navigational templates with three or less names on the top row, should we keep {{EECotton}} and {{EEHealy}} or delete them? — AnemoneProjectors (?) 22:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I just went a little crazy there. Even though it's probably a little too late, I don't see any harm in a minimum of three people on the top line (no less)... However, I'll understand if these look a little of place and you want them gone. Conquistador2k6 (?) 1:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't think we should delete them now that you've made them, and I don't think there are any more to be made. So let's leave it at that. Other navigational template ideas are welcome though. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 18:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

I've just made some redirects so we can link to places easier the same as we do with minor characters - these are Beale's Plaice, Minute Mart and Booty (EastEnders). We already have The Arches (EastEnders), Walford High School and Walford Primary School. Should we make more, like redirects for the addresses? Would mean we could use [[45 Albert Square]] instead of [[List of addresses in EastEnders#45 Albert Square|45 Albert Square]]. What does everyone think? — AnemoneProjectors (?) 18:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea Gungadin 19:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Should we categorise them as EastEnders locations? — AnemoneProjectors (?) 19:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, it's not worth making a new cat. Gungadin 23:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant is it worth categorising them at all? — AnemoneProjectors (?) 08:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think so... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Then I shall do it. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 14:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Family sections on character pages

I think that the Family section on character pages (eg here) look slightly messy. Maybe we could make a template for this?--Thelb⁴ 07:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they're fine. What kind of template do you suggest? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for a template. Would it look any different? What I did think though was should we link to the family section in the infobox as has been done on Pauline Fowler? — AnemoneProjectors (?) 10:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I've changed the Pauline article back so it lists her family in the family field, per the WPEE guidelines of which family should be listed there. I thought it looked crap - if we're just gonna link to another part of the article, what's the point of that field in the infobox? Also, it wouldn't work on the minor charatcer pages, cos there are multiple sections called "Family"... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a template because it can be hidden. I've noticed recently a lot of objections to lists in articles (not just EE ones), so a template could be a way around that problem. Shall we just get rid of the family field from the infobox? I don't think it's necessary to list it there as well as in its own section.Gungadin 12:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then we should probably get rid of the family part of the infobox. To be honest I've never really liked it, it often looks untidy, and everyone with a family has a family section, so best to just use that. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 14:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol, ok, if you get rid of it, you can delete it from every infobox then! How would we do a template? Wouldn't it be outrageously complex? What are the suggestions for the layout of it, etc...? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If we delete it from the infobox template, the family won't show up in articles anyway so we can delete them at our leisure ;) Don't know about the template but I think the only difference would be it would say "|brother=Phil Mitchell" instead of "*Brother: Phil Mitchell" and would have additional text at either end so would involve more typing! — AnemoneProjectors (?) 16:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never felt there was much point in the family bit at the infobox, its just always been there really. I suppose what it can be useful for is showing whos close family and who isn't, but its not essential. Sparhelda 13:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The family section shows who is close family because it tells you how they're related. The infobox doesn't even do that. Although other fictional character infoboxes tell you who is who, and includes everyone. We couldn't do that though as there's too many people in some families. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 16:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Categorising redirects

Just thought I'd mention that one of our categories has been used as an example on Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects as a discussion was brought up about our categorising of redirects on the talk page there. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 22:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

They also made a good point there that the category is an alphabetical listing of all characters so the articles can be in chronological order. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 22:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see they are allowing them to remain categorised. What are your thoughts about setting up a 'minor' sub-cat, like they suggested on the talk page? Gungadin 23:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think keep it as it is, although it wouldn't bother me terribly if it was changed. If someone really wants it changed then I don't mind. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 08:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer it as it is, I think they should all stay in the same category. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor character pages

As the 2005 to present page has about 76 charcters on it (and more to come!), I think we should split up the years differently. Perhaps each page doesn't need an equal number of years, but here's how many characters we have per year:

• 1985 = 12
• 1986 = 17
• 1987 = 11
• 1988 = 10
• 1989 = 3
• 1990 = 5
• 1991 = 3
• 1992 = 4
• 1993 = 8
• 1994 = 3
• 1995 = 1
• 1996 = 4
• 1997 = 13
• 1998 = 3
• 1999 = 5
• 2000 = 8
• 2001 = 11
• 2002 = 3
• 2003 = 16
• 2004 = 9
• 2005 = 6
• 2006 = 37
• 2007 = 33 to date

We could either combine years such as 85-86, 87-90, 91-96, 97-00, 01-02, 03-05, 06, and 07, but I am sure most, if not all of the years are incomplete, so can/will be expanded further, meaning we'd probably want to split them further again, meaning it might be best to have one page per year, although 1995 would look silly at the moment! Any suggestions before we end up with over 100 characters on the 2006-present page? — AnemoneProjectors (?) 11:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If we created one for each year, then just create more character sections for the pages that don't have many, like in 1989 we could write up Gerald Ludlow, Lynna Jackson, Joan Leggett, Joan Russell, Marie Davies, PC Steve Stone, Margaret Stone, WPC Lyn Baxter, Nancy Jenkins, Carol Jenkins, Jenny Masterson, Anthea Blades and Des Bailey and that would bump it up to 16. Similarly with 1995, we could write up Alice Alexander, Fliss Barnes, Stan Dougan, John Wilson and Sid Holliday, and then it wouldn't look so empty.

I think it'd be better (in the long run) to have one per year, as I'm not a fan of random splitting of years. Maybe we could have one for every two or three years until they're big enough to be split into individual lists, just as long as it isn't 2 years here, 4 years there and 3 years somewhere else, it should be consistent. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Consistency is good. And we can work on more redlinks from the past character page. I think 1 per year is best then. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 13:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I'll help as much as I can, but I've just moved house and BT are being pricks about connecting the phoneline, so I have no internet unless I sneak on at work! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, well I'll try to make a start later if I have time. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 14:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as some of the articles will be short when we split, shall I start including characters with only one name or a surname to make them bigger? We dont need to bother giving them redirect pages - so it wont matter if we have Gary from 1992 and a Gary from 1998 for instance. Gungadin 14:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds fine. I started the 1985 page the other day but I gave up cos I was bored :) — AnemoneProjectors (?) 15:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note - if we do every character with one name, they'll get too big and have to be split again! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

We can just do it sparingly, and only for those who actually do something, not some random Mavis who orders tea in the cafe one episode. Does anyone mind if i group 3 minor characters into one section? There's a family of 3 who dont need individual sections, as it would just be repetitive. I dont have their surname so I wont be making a redirect anyway.--Gungadin 15:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I will start splitting the 80s. I will move the main 80s page to List of minor EastEnders characters 1985 and then make 3 new articles for the other years and change each redirect for those. Hope that's the best way to do it.Gungadin 16:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Clare Butcher

Hey, could someone reply to my questions here? Thanks. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't comment at the time because I didn't know the answer. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 09:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what I really need is for Gungadin to say what year the picture's from, then we can work it out. :) -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Put a message on her user talk to get her attention :-P — AnemoneProjectors (?) 10:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, :P -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Duration of minor characters

I know we agreed to keep the "duration" bit in infoboxes for all characters, even one-episode characters, but now that minor characters are split up by year, is it still necessary to keep the duration bit in the infobox if the character only appeared in that one year? — AnemoneProjectors (?) 12:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The minor lists are done by first appearance, so characters like Christine Pretis and Clare Butcher need the duration bit, yes. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes but what about the others who only appeared in one year? That's what I asked. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 15:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont suppose the duartion field is necessary for those who have their appearance dates, however we cant assume that someone reading a minor character profile knows what year they were featured - they might have gone to a character segment from a redirect and not seen that the page is specifically for 1992 or 1985 characters. So the duration should remain for those without appearance dates.

Also, If we're all agreed then shall we go ahead and axe the Family section from the infobox template?Gungadin♦ 18:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if a minor character appeared in only one year and has their exact duration dates then the duration year should be removed. Family sections... maybe. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 19:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Bloody hell!

"Wikipedia kills Walford's Dot" -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, something I reverted made the news! [1] — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 17:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

God, it must have been a really slow news day if this is what the Sun is reporting on today :) Gungadin♦ 18:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bah!

No we have to change Robert Mitchell to Phillip Mitchell on every Mitchell page! Grr — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Some kind anon person did it for us. Anyway, I demand Trampikey return to Wikipedia! He is desperately needed!!! — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeh what has happened to Trampikey? He's missing in action and it's not the same here without him ! Has he just got bored of Wiki do you think? By coincidence I met a guy whose nickname was Trampikey at the Townhouse bar in Knightsbridge tonight. Someone has stolen his pseudonym, Or perhaps I came face to face with the real Trampikey! I should have told him my name was Gungadin to see if he reacted :) Gungadin♦ 00:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it was... I'd know him if I saw him though. We need him here to revert things because sometimes I hesitate to revert but he wouldn't at all. As for this Mitchells' grandfather thing, isn't this the second time the name has changed due to what was seen/mentioned on screen? The writers really need to pay more attention! I thought they had files with all that information in it!!! — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 00:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I think we should just get tough on reverting like Trampikey then. The amount of detail people are adding is ridiculous. I cleaned up the Lucy Beale page the other week and every scene she's ever been in was included on the page. I'm shit at adding things to my watchlist though, so I miss a lot of vandalism. I'll make an effort to look out for vandalism from now on, so that you're not the only one reverting. You've had such a hard time recently with that tosser Abi lover havent you? I think he, Mrs Truman and Dah90 are the same person.

I dont know anything about the Mitchell grandfather thing. I watched the episode when I got in lastnight, but I was only really paying attention to the Ian/Cindy stuff. They are not very consistent with names. take Cindy's mum for instance. Lucy was named after her in 1993, but then she appears in 1998 named Bev. Gungadin♦ 00:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm back! Since July, I've only been able to edit while at work, and I was working pretty much every day during the summer, but now I'm back to school I only work Sundays, so until I have internet access at home, I'll only be on on Sundays... And Gungadin, the person you met wasn't me :), and regarding Grandad Phil - it was said in dialogue, therefore IMO takes place above what is written on Ben's wall or on the website... :) -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hurry up and get access at home!!!!! And yeah I agree about Grandad Phil which is why I said it had to be changed. Just give it a few months and they'll say something different again! — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 10:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hope you get back to full time editing soon Trampikey. I miss you being around :) Gungadin♦ 13:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Pauline Fowler/archive2

The family section in the Pauline article has come under review again. I'm not opposed to it staying, but I cant really think of any defense for keeping it, since we have the template and the family tree jpg. So if anyone else has a convincing argument for it to remain, then please comment at the peer review. Gungadin♦ 18:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I can think of no reason to keep it. A link to The Beale/Fowler family somewhere in the article should be ok as the article includes my family tree, thus showing who is related to Pauline and how. The important family members are obviously mentioned in the text of Pauline's page. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 20:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm scared Trampikey will be mad, lol. We could put a see also link in "importance of family". We should also bung Nellie Ellis into the template.

I was playing around with adding your tree image into the Pauline page at 800px. I think it looks really good. What do you think about including the tree pics instead of the family lists for other pages? Gungadin♦ 20:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks quite good to me actually. There are people in the family sections that won't be in family trees and templates though, like Nellie as you say. She doesn't really fit in the template, being related to Lou. I'm not sure really what is best. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 21:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Stalker

I know we aren't meant to use this place as discussion for the program but it has to be asked, does anyone know who Ian's stalker was? I didn't recognise him, looked kind of new. Sparhelda 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Steven Beale, the page has been updated... 82.152.193.215 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly false information added to British soap articles by User:Non-gayboy

I've also asked this on the main Wikiproject:Soap operas page, but I thought this might be a better place to find people familiar with UK soaps.

I've noticed a couple of obvious hoax articles from this user here and here. From his talk page it looks like he's created some hoaxes before. He's also made numerous changes to other soap-related articles, so i wonder is someone who knows a bit about British soaps could have a look through his contributions and check whether he's added any more incorrect information. In particular this series of unexplained changes to The British Soap Awards looks like it needs checking - unfortunately my quick Google didn't bring up a reliable list to compare it to. Best, Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 00:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Please see Talk:Paula Campbell (singer). Chubbles 18:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done and created a disambiguation page. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 20:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

List of television shows with LGBT characters

EastEnders is missing from the list of television shows with LGBT characters, which is surprising since it caused a record number of complaints when Colin kissed Barry on the forehead! And all the other controversial kisses and stuff. Would someone like to check it out and add some information? — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 20:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done Gungadin♦ 16:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That's great. I love how it's the only section with references! — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 17:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I didnt know whether to include refs, but I thought I was making claims that needed to be backed up. There's been some gay characters this year I might add to the list, like the one from Brighton and Peggy's decorator. What does that T stand for in LGBT. is it transvestite? Is a drag queen a transvestite, or are people only called transvestites if they live as women? Because I didnt know whether to include John Fisher (EastEnders) or not. Gungadin♦ 17:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The T is transgender. A transgendered person can be a transsexual, a transvestite, cross-dresser, drag queen and more besides: take a look at the transgender page if you really want to know! Is it worth mentioning Zoe and Kelly's kiss? — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 20:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And I would include John Fisher. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 20:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot about Kelly and Zoe's kiss. I added something on that in the brooke kinsella article, which can be added. Should they be listed as LGBT characters? Gungadin♦ 13:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think that kiss meant that either of them was bisexual. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 14:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)