Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Operation: Cleanup

The character articles are dire at the moment and need a lot of cleaning up. References and out of universe content needs to be added, but our main focus for the moment should be to clear up all the crap and drive lthat's been written on them, and condense irrelevant and long-winded material. I think we should assess all the articles and see which are in most need of cleaning - I've made a start :) -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Article	Assessment/comments	OOU section?	Cleaned up?
Ian Beale	Needs updating, spell/grammar checking	Y
Dot Branning	Needs condensing, less sections, less on Pauline's death/Tomas, needs information on Jim's illness and what's happened since, needs referencing	N (has pop culture section)	Plot 2002-present majorly reduced 31 Jan [1] Rest of plot reduced 12 Feb [2]
Pat Evans	Needs condensing, less on Pat vs. Shirley/Joan Harris/Steven, Joan's past can go in the background section, needs references	Y (incomplete)	condensed added creation (Mar 2008)
Ricky Butcher	Needs more references and OOU stuff. Plot needs rewriting in places because (and I noticed this a long time ago) A lot of it appears to have been lifted directly from Walford web [3] by SweetiePetie back in 2006 [4]	Y (incomplete)|OOU started April 2008.
Steven Beale	Needs watching for user Lizzie Brooks, who's desperate to inclue way too much information.	Y	OOU section added 4/3/08
Phil Mitchell	All the storylines could do with condesing, particularly recent stuff. The OOU stuff can now be extended with sources on Stella etc., "Jack Branning" section - what the fuck!?	Y
Peggy Mitchell	Needs referencing	Y (incomplete)	OOU added 23/3/08
Bianca Jackson	I think this is pretty good. Might add an OOU section on David from stuff in that docu	Y
Clare Bates	Needs references, OOU section	Y	OOU added 2/3/08
Lucy Beale	Steven's return needs condensing. It really wasnt about Lucy, so doesnt need to be so long. This article needs watching, as some Lucy fan is obsessed with reincluding every thing she's ever done! Needs references	N	Condensed 28/01/08
Peter Beale	Needs watching for fangirls - stuff about Ben and Steven needs to be vastly condensed, needs references, needs major cleanup/condensing	N	I've never seen so much crap in one article before. I got rid (April 08)
Ben Mitchell (EastEnders)	Plot condensing, MoS/grammar/spelling checks, needs OOU section, there must be loads of references to do with the Stella storyline and Charlie Jones's crap acting...	N	Condensed (April 2008)
Liam Butcher	More OOU stuff if we can find it.	Y (incomplete)
Billy Mitchell (EastEnders)	Needs references, OOU section would be easy with Down's syndrome stuff. Praise for Perry Fenwick: [5]	N
Charlie Slater	Needs references	N
Garry Hobbs	Needs references
Mo Harris		Y	OOU section added 16 Feb
Patrick Trueman
Minty Peterson	needs refs, needs OOU stuff.	N	cu storylines (April 08)
Gus Smith
Mickey Miller		Y	OOU added, storylines condensed May 08
Bobby Beale
Yolande Trueman
Jane Beale		N	Attempted storyline reduction, could possibly use more.
Darren Miller
Keith Miller (EastEnders)
Stacey Branning	Major plot condensing needed, several sources for an OOU section are on the talk page.	Y (incomplete)	Plot condensed (by 14000 bytes!) 16 Feb [6] OOU started.
Jean Slater
Dawn Swann
Honey Mitchell	Needs references/OOU section, Down's syndrome storyline would be easy to write an OOU section on - needs condensing. This article is a mess! where's the stuff about her introduction gone?	Y	condensed (April 08), OOU section added
Bradley Branning	Stacey and Bradley stuff needs major condensing; needs OOU section; interview:[7]	N	Plot majorly condensed 29 Jun 08 [8]
Chelsea Fox	OOU needed, sources	N	condensed and removed POV (april 08)
Denise Wicks	Controversial storyline reference: [9]	N	Condensed (April 08)
Libby Fox		N
Tanya Branning	Storyline condensing - Oscar's birth doesn't warrant its own section, Rainie section needs to be reduced. Trivia section requires merging into the main text of the article. Praise for Jo Joyner's acting: [10]		Reduced 22 Jan, trivia moved to small OOU section.
Abi Branning	Remove trivial information, needs references	N	Plot condensed [11] Plot condensed again on 13 Apr [12]
Lauren Branning	Major condensing. Probably a rewrite. An awful article.		Plot seriously reduced 09/03/08 [13]
Sean Slater	Rewrite in places. Remove the OR and POV throughout, particularly the personality section. Check for tone. Too many headers, too detailed, too many one sentence paragraphs. Major condensing. Sourcing, some quotes from Kazinsky are unsourced too, and an OOU section is needed. I think this is one of the worst.	Y (incomplete)	Condensed, rewritten etc Mar 08 Gungadin 23:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC) OOU sections started 1 May [14]
Janet Mitchell		Y (incomplete)	Some OOU content added 13 Apr [15]
Shirley Carter	needs more sources, and OOU stuff	N	done loads of condesing (april 08)
Jay Brown	Article about stabbing storyline: [16]		Plot reduced 22 Jan.
Hazel Hobbs		N
Summer Swann	Possibly merge to minors.	n/a	Merged 22 Jan
Heather Trott	Plot needs reducing, cleaning up	Y (incomplete)	Plot reduced and cleaned up 13 Apr [17], OOU section started 13 Apr [18]
Zainab Masood		Y
Shabnam Masood		Y
Jase Dyer	Stuff about the gang storyline: [19][20]
Roxy Mitchell	Storyline condensing - too many sections, MoS/spelling/grammar checks needed		Plot substantially reduced on 22 Jan.[21]
Ronnie Mitchell	Major storyline condensing. Ridiculous amount of plot info for a character that isnt even a year old	Y	Plot substantially reduced on 21 Jan.[22] Further reduced on 1st Feb 2008. OOU section added
Tamwar Masood	Has OOU section. Nothing more to do here at the moment. Has barely been featured.	Y
Vinnie Monks	Fine at the moment.	Y
Masood Ahmed		Y
Jack Branning	Plot condensing, needs references and an OOU section; interview that can be harvested for quotes: [23]	Y	Plot condensed [24] Added 'Creation', 'Development' and 'Reception' sections, over a dozen references, and around 9kb OOU content, 24 Feb [25]
William Mitchell (EastEnders)	Should probably be merged into minors list		Merged 22 Jan.
Oscar Branning	Needs merging into the minors list in my opinion.		Merged 22 Jan.
Christian Clarke	Update with interview from here[26]. Good OOU stuff and comments from actor	Y
Sal Martin
Rachel Branning	If we can find some sources, she might be able to have her own page.	N
Rainie Cross
Whitney Dean
Tiffany Dean
Morgan Jackson-King

This has been really productive hasn't it? I wouldnt have ever bothered cleaning up some of these current characters if it wasnt for this. I dont think I had even read half of them before. Do you think we should create a subpage from here and make a much larger table, with the aim to include every character page past and present? It would help outline what we need to do for all the past characters too, and we could also direct to it from the project's main page, so if any random users want to get involved, they can visit the page and see what needs to be done? I know this would take ages, but it could get filled out bit by bit, like this one. Gungadin 21:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I really like that idea. We could have it at Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders/Operation: Cleanup. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

two-handers

Shall we put these in a table format, and delete most of the long plot info? Gungadin 15:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think any of the episodes are notable enough to warrant an article of their own? I'm not sure about most of the two-handers, but I think the Dot single-hander probably has sufficient notability and potential sources to stand on its own merit... Frickative (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, good idea, the single hander definitely could have its own page, but doubt the others could. Den and Angie is a possibility, as it was the first and is still talked about in the media. A lot of them would have had many media sources at the time they aired, but we wont be able to get hold of them now.Gungadin 17:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the two-handers article as it is has a decent amount of potential for expansion with real world info - just now was the first time I'd actually read it, and I found it really interesting... while the plot info could use condensing, I think it'd be a shame to convert it just to a table. Isn't there a guideline that says about 100 words is acceptable plot info for every ten mins of screentime? So 300 words of plot ought to be fine for each episode, as long as additional real world info could be found to support it... Perhaps if it came to it, the less notable episodes could be put in to table format, and the ones with remaining media sources discussed a bit more thoroughly? I think I'm just thinking aloud now, so instead I'll go see what sources I can actually dig up :p Frickative (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Here we are - just about every source I could find is here :) Frickative (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's excellent, I can see you're very good at finding sources :) I think there's also a source on the talk page from the guardian, but you might have it in there alredy.Gungadin 22:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles which need looking at once the hype's died down

There's no point tidying them now, as people will just add endless crap to them, especially after tomorrow's episode, which will continue from today's...

• May Wright
• Dawn Swann
• Mickey Miller

-Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Trampikey, it feels like I havent corresponded with you in ages :) Good idea, we'll let them go loose making over-descriptive plot section, then cut 95% of it when the storyline finishes lol. If you can find any sources on Mickey's exit, can you put them on his talk page, so that I can complete the article once he goes.Gungadin 12:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I feel that this project should be merged with WikiProject BBC as a task force where this project might gain more members and increase its popularity. UNI^|SOUTH 09:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, you're alright. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What would merging entail? Would we be able to keep the EE discussions separate? I cant imagine BBC editors would be concerned with the various style and content discussions we have here about EE articles. But, I would welcome more members getting involved, certainly. Sheri^whinge 19:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes you would be able to keep the EastEnders discussions seperate on the Task Force talk page. UNI^|SOUTH 15:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want to become a subsection of another WikiProject, to be honest. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

'I'? One person does not make a decision for the whole WikiProject, do not forget that noone owns any part of Wikipedia. If you don't want extra publicity then be my guest. UNI^|SOUTH 05:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Trampikey Stephenb (Talk) 11:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed to own any part of Wikipedia. I just stated my opinion on the matter as a member of the project. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Frickative's GA assessments

Frickative has very kindly gone through our B class articles in turn and given us an assessment of each, because I thought it might be a good idea if, in between other edits, we can work together on getting some of these to GA class if possible. What do you think? and if you think it's a good idea, which of the recommended ones should we try for? What's clear from Frickative's assessments is that many are labelled as B, when they shouldnt be, but now we have the C cat available to us, we can demote the ones that are better than start class, but not B class yet. There are also numerous ideas for improvements here.

• Ali Osman - I think at pushing 1600 words, the plot on this one could do with a bit of trimming before taking it to GA. The lead needs fleshing out a bit, and with just two references once you discount the trivia piece (which would need to be integrated into the body of the article or just discounted on the grounds of being a bit crufty) it wouldn't be my first suggestion to nominate as is.
• Angie Watts - Again, the plot could use a bit of trimming down before nominating, but I think the main thing a GA review of this article would pick up on would be the lack of a 'Reception' section. The end of the 'Development' section could certainly be split off into one, but I think unless that was expanded upon, a GA reviewer would probably question whether the article was sufficiently broad in scope.
• Arthur Fowler - As with Angie, needs a 'Reception' section. The T-shirt campaign stuff again reads like the beginning of one, but it'd probably need a bit of a copy edit as well - I noticed just skimming through the uncited sentence "Arthur became one of EastEnders best loved characters" so I'd definitely give it a double check for anything bordering on OR or peacocking.
• Barry Clark - Once more, I'd tighten the storylines section up a little bit - I think this is the shortest one so far, but it still weighs in at pushing 1500 words. I think this one lends itself quite neatly into splitting up to add a 'Reception' section using the stuff that's already there in 'Development', and with that done I'd say this would be my first GA nom suggestion thusfar.
• Bianca Jackson - This one's a really excellent article, I think. The lead - as is the case with a lot of these - just needs expanding a bit so as to summarise the whole article, but beyond that, all I'd say is, with the OOU development bits so long, the storylines section in some places is a little bit repetitive of what's already been said - though really that just makes it easier to trim down a touch. It's definitely the best referenced thusfar, and while a lack of references isn't necessarily that stands against GA noms, especially in the case of earlier characters for whom there are naturally less available, I'd say this one with a small bit of work would be an excellent nom.
• Bruno, Joe, Luisa and Rosa di Marco - What I'd say about these articles is, while all the OOU stuff about how unpopular the di Marco's were is well referenced (and interesting as well!) all four articles really tell the reader more about the di Marco family in general, rather than Bruno, Joe, Luisa and Rosa individually. I think a GA reviewer would probably pull each of them up as not quite being broad enough, for that reason. As an aside, it looks as though the 'Reception' section the others have has been missed off with Joe :)
• Carmel Jackson - I think this is an excellent example of an article being broad in scope and coverage despite a limited number of sources available. Maybe cut down the level of detail in the 'Domestic violence' subsection, and tighten up the prose a touch (for instance, in the lead: "After six months of suffering, she wisely left him." isn't the most encyclopedic way of expressing that) but all in all, I think this would be another good nom.

Colin Russell would be a really interesting one for the future, if any sources could be dug up discussing the cultural impact of the gay storyline, given that almost a decade has past in the interim. I tapped "EastEnders" into After Elton.com and it flashed back 676 results. I'm sure a lot of them were probably duplicates or message board posts, but there might be something usable there.

The Den Watts article has excellent OOU content, but the storylines section is far too long in current form.

With the Ethel Skinner article - I don't know if there are any more sources that could be dug up, & perhaps there aren't, but with it being such a controversial storyline, I don't know if a little more than the existing paragraph could be made of that?

Frank Butcher - another one with the stoylines section in need of quite dramatic condensing, plus with the article currently being fully protected, that might count against it in a GA review if the article is usually unstable due to excess vandalism.

Grant Mitchell - storylines, again :D Same with Ian Beale, & Mark Fowler

Joe Macer - Just from skimming it v briefly, I think some of the prose needs tightening up. I know it's not really all that funny, but I actually giggled at the irrelevence of the line: "The wedding guests were Dot, Lucy, Rebecca, Martin, Sonia, Megan, Jane, Ian, Peter, Jim, Rosie, Keith, Demi and Pauline's dog Betty."

Josie McFarlane's a really interesting one, especially in the context of Angela Wynter's recent comments about Yolande being axed. It's a good article - not one I'd nominate first amongst the candidates, but one of those really solid ones with fewer sources that would still stand up quite well, I think, after the more obvious front-runners than been put under scrutiny.

The creation and development stuff on Lou Beale is good, but ideally it needs a section on reception before being nominated. Same goes for Mehmet Osman (and what a great mustache he had...) Also Natalie Evans, another one with a great development section, though the creation here could probably use expanding a bit too. Ronnie Mitchell, again, absolutely fine in all other respects, but just needs some more on reception before being assessed. Sharon Rickman, same thing, though could do with storylines condensing a bit too. Steven Beale...reception, again. Sue Osman, same thing... storylines a big longish, could do with a few more citations if any exist. And Tony Carpenter. Needs a reception section, and I think is the only one of the whole B-class category which only has a single reference.

Michelle Fowler - I know a lack of references shouldn't necessarily stop an article becoming a GA, but with only 2 citations, I'd hold this one back a while. And nix the trivia section, though the first point is really interesting, if it can be sourced. Pete Beale I'd probably hold back on too, because while the sources are very good ones, again they're a touch too thin on the ground.

Mickey Miller's a very good one, if you can expand the lead and, more importantly, the reception section further.

Peggy Mitchell again is very good... the storylines seem a bit on the long side, and I know how bloody hard it must be to try and condense 17 years of plots into 1000ish words, but aside from that, definitely a strong article.

Yikes! On a similar note, the storylines section for Phil Mitchell is ginormous. I might possibly have a go at trimming that one down a bit myself, just for the challenge it presents... Ah, and this one, again, is protected, so another stability issue.

Roly is an interesting article - not so many sources again, but I did wonder while looking at it, if it might perhaps be better off, with the storylines cut down a bit, maybe merged into some sort of EastEnders pets article? What with the upcoming death of Wellard :( there'd probably be enough combined to result in one really strong article?

Overall, the ones I think would be easiest to get to GA with the minimal amount of work, as the articles stand at present, are Bianca Jackson and Clare Bates. After that, with a little bit of tweaking in some areas, I'd go for Peggy Mitchell, Mickey Miller and Steven Beale, followed by Ronnie Mitchell if the Reception section can be expanded a bit. Frickative

GG^Moan 20:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject EastEnders participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 21:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject EastEnders participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for EastEnders

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

User:WJH1992

Trampikey, your favourite user is back it appears. He's been changing first and last dates on various EE character pages under this ip User:92.235.125.183. So just look out for him.GunGagdin^Moan 16:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Operation: Cleanup part deux

I've moved "Operation: Cleanup" to here like the Corrie WikiProject has. I've assessed all the articles and what needs doing. Feel free to add your own assessments/comments/etc. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:05, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder that it's a good idea to give a link to the alerts when you are using "display=none", otherwise no one knows they exist.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Very complicated to understand. I already had the alerts subpage on my watchlist but now I've moved the template to where we have our "community discussions" and used "display=columns". I think that's right... ^anemone│_projectors 17:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Stuff

Well, as I'm sure you're all aware, I'm back. Here's a few things:

• {{WPEE FUR}}. Does anyone still use this template for images? It's not in any images as it's always substed. If nobody uses it, I want to delete it.
• I've created Category:EastEnders sounds after noticing a couple of sound files. Any more? Please add them.
• I'm busy making sure every EastEnders page, file, redirects, templates, etc, are on my watchlist and am working on tagging (and categorising) them appropriately, as I was doing before using AutoWikiBrowser.
• Gungadin and I want to get rid of/merge some of the "family" navigation templates and will probably start work on this shortly.
• I can't remember what else.
• Anything important I should know? ^anemone│_projectors 18:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm trying to think of wiki highlights from 2008. The houses list was deleted. The buildings list was deleted. User:Frickative got Whitney Dean to GA. Pauline still hasnt been on the front page :) GunGagdin^Moan 19:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I knew 3 of those 4 things :) Lots of new project subpages too. And I notice C-Class has been invented! Well that's a good thing. ^anemone│_projectors 20:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and we don't wikilink dates anymore. ^anemone│_projectors 20:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reorganised and updated the main project page. Hope that's ok! I basically copied the Doctor Who one :) Feel free to improve it because it's probably still not perfect. ^anemone│_projectors 22:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Navigation templates

If anyone wants to make new templates, please discuss them here. I've just removed and deleted two, for the so-called Edwards and Bishop families, created only so Jack Edwards and Caroline Bishop could be included in templates. As discussed with Gungadin at Template talk:EEMartins, we should aim to remove the ones created just to include one or two minor characters who don't fit in elsewhere, and those that are almost duplicates of others. The Medeemey template was nominated for deletion a while ago and although the discussion was closed as delete, nobody had deleted it, so I did that today. We also discussed putting people in "clans" rather than families, so Deano and Carly Wicks would be included in the Wicks template, for example. Also, some time ago we agreed that templates would have to have a minimum of four names on the top row. I propose deleting or merging the following:

• {{EECarters}} (merge with Wicks)
• {{EEClarke}} (merge with Beale?)
• {{EECross}} (merge with Branning)
• {{EEFoxes}} (unsure, merge with Wicks or Johnson?)
• {{EEHarris}} (not sure)
• {{EEHealy}} (possible keep)
• {{EEJohnsons}} (maybe merge with Fox)
• {{EEKapoors}} (possible keep)
• {{EEMartins}} (merge with Mitchell)
• {{EEMinter}} (merge with Miller/Swann?)
• {{EEPalmers}} (no idea)
• {{EEPorters}} (merge with Slater?)
• {{EEPrice}} (possible keep)
• {{EESwann}} (merge with Millers)
• {{EEWilliam}} (merge with Beale?)

Any comments/suggestions are welcome. We may need to find a new way to display the information in the template. ^anemone│_projectors 15:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think keep Kapoor and Healy. Palmers is no good because no one knows who the Palmers are! It should be renamed to Bates. Price is not necessary, Natalie and Andrea can be merged with Evans, the others were not significant. Merge/delete the others except Foxes - I think the template should be called Fox and Lucas etc can be merged into that, as that is the most known name.GunGagdin^Moan 22:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree about the Fox one. I was most confused about the Harris one though. Pat Evans doesn't have her own template, she's just a spouse, so I think her brother should stay out of the templates area. He's not been in EastEnders anyway. So we could delete that one. ^anemone│_projectors 22:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the Harris one is not necessary. We could always forget the spouses section and just list the clan without labelling if they were only part of that clan via marriage. I dont think Peggy is any less a Mitchell because she wasnt born with that name, for instance.GunGagdin^Moan 23:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. At the moment they're listed in order of age, with their children listed next to them. Should we change that? Maybe just an alphabetical list of names would be better. Not sure. The order in the templates at the moment isn't really clear to people unfamiliar with EastEnders. If you want to experiment with template layouts, feel free to do it here: User:AnemoneProjectors/Templates. ^anemone│_projectors 23:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Would be easier to include characters that way and we wouldnt have to worry about restrictions as we have done before. I think alphabetical is better and easier to navigate. I also think, and this is something you said ages ago, that the minor lists should be alphabetical too. It makes much more sense for people looking for an individual character to use their name as reference rather than the first appearance when no one is likely to even know it. But i'm going off topic.... :) GunGagdin^Moan 23:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah you are going off topic... but the reason the minor lists are in chronological order is because the characters category is alphabetical. It's really the only reason we were allowed to keep the names in the category. It's even mentioned at WP:CAT-R. So yeah, let's do the templates alphabetically :) ^anemone│_projectors 23:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see. interesting, I didnt know that, or perhaps I just forgot. That wasnt my intention when I initially constructed the list in chronological order. lol GunGagdin^Moan 13:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I remember we had a big discussion, probably on the talk page of the CAT-R page, about the minor lists and categorising their redirects. That's why we do it. Before that I didn't like them being in chronological order but after that I accepted it. ^anemone│_projectors 14:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

How about something like this?

What do you think? ^anemone│_projectors 14:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Its a bit complicated! I made the Clarke template but at the time I actually thought that Janes parents were permanent characters. If I had known they were guest stints, (especially Roger!) I would never have made the template. Apoligies Cutekitten05 (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That's ok. I'm just trying to cut down on the number of templates we have but still include characters from the ones we might not need. I can't think of any other way. ^anemone│_projectors 20:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Gungadin, what do you think????? AnemoneProjectors (what?) 12:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Think that's fine, not sure the casual reader will get what the characters in brackets are meant to represent though, but that's not majorly important.GunGagdin^Moan 19:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it be better without using the brackets at all? AnemoneProjectors (what?) 22:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Let's remove brackets for now. Or could we have one section saying Beale born, and the next section saying Related by marriage? GunGagdin^Moan 11:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping to get rid of separate sections and have them all together. It was just the way of ordering them that I was concerned about. I just put the spouses next to who they married... and any other related people next to them. I put them in brackets as they're not actual Beales, but are still associated with the "clan" as we were trying to do. Perhaps for now, I'll just merge the spouses and not put any others in until we can decide what to do for merging the templates we don't want. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 11:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what you've done is fine actually. Let's keep it like this.GunGagdin^Moan 15:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I'll make a start on changing the layout of all the templates, and merging the ones we don't want as listed above. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 16:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's working quite well but I've spotted a few problems. If the plan was to put minor/recurring characters who are slightly related in brackets, there is several missing. For example, Jane Beale's parents are included in the Beale template but Laura Beale's are not. I don't know if they should be included but if we did include all these small characters, the templates would be too big! Also Jim Brannings wives are listed one after the other in the Branning template while Pauline Fowlers husbands are spaced out. (Joe is put after her children) Cutekitten05 (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I put Pauline's children with Arthur after Arthur, then Joe at the end. Dot would be at the very end of the Brannings template if it was done there too. Not sure what's better. I didn't think too much about other characters that are missing, such as Laura's family, as they weren't in another template. Ian's in-laws would also appear in the Hills template, which hasn't been changed yet. Is there anyone else other than Laura's parents that could go in the Beale template following the new changes? AnemoneProjectors (what?) 18:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What about Melanie's family? Should we keep the Healy template, and exclude them from the Beale template? AnemoneProjectors (what?) 18:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep Healy as they were a family independent of the Beales. The Dunns were only part of the Beales' storyline. But perhaps just have a see also field, bung all the random relatives in that? Nellie, Cindy's family, the Dunns etc? GunGagdin^Moan 20:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I think that could work. What about adopted children. Should they be included as proper family members? Cutekitten05 (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A see also bit could work instead of using brackets. Adopted children should be listed as if they were biological children, like I've done with Whitney. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 21:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Merging Price and Evans?

I'm after changing {{EEEvans}}. I added in Andrea Price and was wondering if perhaps {{EEPrice}} should be deleted? I don't think that Natalies siblings are that notable and seeing as her mother is now in this template now I just thought it might be a good idea? Cutekitten05 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As you put Andrea in the Evans one, I put the other Prices in already, before even seeing this message. So yeah. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 18:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Reception and awards

I don't know if many awards have been included in the reception sections of articles but it's obviously a really good idea and actually very important. EastEnders just won three All About Soap Bubble Awards (see here) and I've added a reception section to Janine Butcher and mentioned her award with a quote from Charlie Brooks. The other awards could be mentioned on the other characters' pages, and there are quite good quotes too, especially about the fight between Max and Jack. Perhaps now that I've done the list of awards and nominations received by EastEnders, someone wouldn't mind putting some of the information into actual character pages. It's a big task but everything is referenced so there might be other quotes to be found as well! ^anemone│_projectors 11:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, excellent work on the awards list - it looks fantastic! Given that it seems impeccably referenced and I have a lazy afternoon, I'll give extrapolating the info to character pages a shot. I'm basically just twiddling my thumbs at the moment waiting for Danielle to die so I can finish off that article and take it to GA anyway =) Frickative 11:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That's just mean! I don't want her to die. I want a happy ending! ^anemone│_projectors 11:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would fine too! As long as we still get the BBC3 Revealed episode packed full of production comments. You know it's a slow month when you read the TV guide and think 'Ah, must watch that for Wikipedia...' Frickative 12:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, when's that on? Will you be recording it? :) Oh yeah if you feel the list of awards can be improved in any way, please do so. There were awards listed that I couldn't reference so I commented them out. Gungadin and I also wanted to find more free images to put on it, and maybe even get it to Featured List status. What do you think? I know the list is incomplete. ^anemone│_projectors 12:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmph, for some reason I thought it was on Thursday night, but apparently it's not until 8.30pm Friday. I'll probably stick a DVD in for it just because it'll be easier to rewind repeatedly to transcribe than iPlayer =D I think the page looks in great shape for a FL nom. Wrt it being incomplete, looking at the page before the unreferenced ones were commented out, I don't think it's a huge problem. Things like Adam Woodyatt's 'Society of Wedding and Portrait Photographers' award, and random Daily Star nominations are probably of questionable notability in the grand scheme of things anyway. & as for free images, there are a fair few floating about on the Commons I think... of the ones on the list, theres Barbara Windsor [27] Adam Woodyatt [28] & Letitia Dean [29], all from Wendy Richard's funeral. There's also Jessie Wallace [30] and Perry Fenwick [31] on Flickr under a Creative Commons licence, though the Perry one is far from great quality :) Frickative 14:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I got rid of that 'Society of Wedding and Portrait Photographers' because if he did win an award for photography, it's nothing to do with EastEnders. I've never heard of it. I also got rid of all the Sexiest, Best Dressed awards and similar awards. I meant to look up flickr for other free images. The Perry Fenwick one is poor. I'm not a fan of those funeral pictures either, especially Barbara Windsor's. Patsy Palmer's was ok so I used it. And Jessie Wallace's pic looks weird too. I don't suppose it really matters. I just don't like any of them! ^anemone│_projectors 14:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I think as long as they're free use and give a decent representation of what the person looks like they're fine. I don't think any of them bar the Perry one are too bad, especially compared to, ah... interesting specimens such as the free-use Gary Beadle [32] image. Anway, this is going to be a longer job than envisioned. I'm going to make a list of the ones that need doing & tick them off as I go, that way if anyone wants to dive in, it's clear which ones still need doing. As an aside, is there a reason only some have the character names bracketed beside the actor names? I think it would be helpful to have that there consistently :) Frickative 15:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Character articles to edit w/award wins & nominations

• Dot Branning Y
• Grant Mitchell Y
• Bianca Jackson Y
• Joe Wicks Y
• Tiffany Mitchell Y
• Matthew Rose
• Melanie Owen
• Jamie Mitchell
• Steve Owen
• Janine Evans
• Billy Mitchell
• Phil Mitchell
• Lisa Fowler
• Little Mo Mitchell
• Kat Moon
• Trevor Morgan
• Sam Mitchell
• Alfie Moon
• Dennis Rickman
• Chrissie Watts
• Spencer Moon
• Jake Moon
• Whitney Dean

• Stacey Slater
• Bradley Branning
• Dawn Swann
• Tanya Branning
• Peggy Mitchell
• Roxy Mitchell
• Tiffany Dean
• Carol Jackson
• Sonia Fowler
• Barry Evans
• Ricky Butcher
• Jim Branning
• Zoe Slater
• Sharon Rickman
• Den Watts
• Paul Trueman
• Garry Hobbs
• Darren Miller
• Johnny Allen
• Pauline Fowler
• Andy Hunter
• Patrick Trueman
• Zainab Masood

• Stella Crawford
• Jase Dyer
• Jay Brown Y
• Heather Trott Y
• Shirley Carter
• Ronnie Mitchell
• Max Branning
• Sean Slater
• Archie Mitchell
• Nick Cotton
• Tony King
• Ian Beale
• Lucy Beale
• May Wright
• Wellard Y
• Minty Peterson
• Jane Beale
• Steven Beale
• Jack Branning
• Denise Wicks
• Kevin Wicks
• Christian Clarke
• Masood Ahmed

Yeah I suppose we should use them. Haha I thought that image was called "Gary Beadle's Now White"! OMG! Hmm yeah I suppose I should have put all the character names on. That's my next thing to do then. ^anemone│_projectors 15:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've started adding character names but I feel I should put the name of the character when the nomination came up, and it's all too much trouble for me to see when some characters got married. Melanie Owen for example has been a Healy and a Beale too. I think it matters that I get it right... what do you think? ^anemone│_projectors 15:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd say go with the mostly easily recognised name, but then I'm an advocate of WP:COMMONNAME - I don't agree with moving articles around just because characters have been married on-screen for ten seconds, regardless ten years under a different name. I know others don't agree, and so it's a bone of contention I generally try to turn a blind eye to with EastEnders articles :) Frickative 18:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. Maybe I'll use the common name then. ^anemone│_projectors 19:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yay, I've done all the character names :) ^anemone│_projectors 20:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Storylines of EastEnders

Ages ago, I claimed on of the AFDs for these, that I was going to rewrite them. I dont think it's worth it. Anything of note is covered in character pages. They are a bugger to maintain, and nobody really does maintain them. The 2000s has grown to ridiculous lengths. Should we delete or redirect? GunGagdin^Moan 19:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Go on, list them at AFD. Any storylines that are notable should have their own articles, such as the ones we already have. But we lose the BMD lists for good. Might put it in my userspace, just cos I like it. ^anemone│_projectors 19:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to AFD them, could we just redirect them or do we need to afd them to get consensus to do that too? could add bmd to end of list of characters perhapsGunGagdin^Moan 19:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth having redirects being left behind? I don't like the idea of people reverting the redirects or whatever. We don't need to get consensus from the whole of Wikipedia to redirect them though. And we don't really even need the BMDs. ^anemone│_projectors 19:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I shall go for it, but I will ask Stephenb first in case he objects.GunGagdin^Moan 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. ^anemone│_projectors 23:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed he hasn't been on Wikipedia since 16 February so you might not get a reply. ^anemone│_projectors 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, i'll just AFD them.GunGagdin^Moan 21:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I'll try to change the basic parameters of the three infoboxes to be compatible with the standard infobox. This helps editors to make changes. For example "actor_name" has to change to "portrayer", etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter? It's a lot of work for you. By the way, why do we now have three? There were only two before. What's the difference between them? AnemoneProjectors (what?) 11:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I can do it very easily with AWB. Standarisation is always better. Many people try to add this without checking the documentation. I don't know why are are three templates. Probably we can merge them or something. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I know when we added the "family" bit at the bottom, we couldn't figure out how to not display the word "family" when we didn't want it, so had to make a new template for that. I notice that template 3 doesn't have the "profile" bit that template 2 has. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 15:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, me and Trampikey made infobox 3 for the minor lists, so that we didnt have to have the profile section separated. It's useful for those who dont have many fields in profile.GunGagdin^Moan 19:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's ok by me then. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 22:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I made the following changes: "character_name" -> "name", "actor_name" -> "portrayer", "dob" -> "born", "dod" -> "death". -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed! My watchlist has gone mental ;) AnemoneProjectors (what?) 16:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This is always the bad thing with mass changes. I used my bot hoping the bot flag would minimise this. If you have to proposals for changes, please let me know. Cheers. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I've hidden bot edits for now. At least I can see that it works! I suppose it's good to standardise everything, we just need to remember the changes for future. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 16:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheesey subtitles etc

I've been thinking that we should phase out the cheesey subtitles in storyline sections, instead using durations as the titles. What do you think? GunGagdin^Moan 00:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, yeah. But are they really that cheesy? AnemoneProjectors (what?) 09:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all of them are, but some are a little, like the "Looking for Lurrrve" one I removed from Heather :) The main reason I think they should go is because they force editors to think up headlines, and then information in the subsection is only contained to those particular storyline, meaning you get loads of subtitles eventually, like what has happened in the Ronnie Mitchell one now.GunGagdin^Moan 10:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I saw you remove the Heather ones. Good move. Sometimes if we don't keep an eye on things, we'll get a whole section with just one line in it for a minor storyline. Using years probably is better. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 10:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Lately I've seen lots of new sources that are good for our development (etc) sections, and if I've been unable to write anything at the time, I've put the source on the talk page. Just wanted to make sure people check these. There's two Digital Spy sources out today that are good for lots of characters so thought I'd link them here. It includes stuff on Danielle Jones. [33] and [34] AnemoneProjectors (what?) 13:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Years in infoboxes

According to WP:YEAR: "A closing CE/AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year (1881–1986). The full closing year is acceptable." There's some kind of minor edit war going on in various articles with the changing of this format, especially in the family sections in relation to dates of marriages. I think we should be consistent and use the same format for durations of characters, portrayals and marriages. Does anyone have any preference as to which format we use? I kind of like the two digits. Whatever we decide, I'm happy to use AWB to make all the necessary changes. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 13:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont have a preference, go with what you prefer, or with what will take less time to alter. I am amazed at how many edits the infoboxes on EE characters receive. For me, they are the least important bit, but i'd say they are the most edited part of the pages.GunGagdin^Moan 13:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're so right!!! But I just want to be consistent. I guess it's good that people care about the infoboxes enough to update them and make sure they're formatted correctly. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 14:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, I've got a little helper :) AnemoneProjectors (what?) 17:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that I've done it, another user is saying that it looks wrong in some places. Should I therefore change them all back or should we leave them as they are? I guess I should have got proper consensus first but I did what Gungadin said, I did what I wanted! AnemoneProjectors (what?) 17:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Leave em. You followed a guideline so there's already consensus isnt there? Plus, can you really be bothered to alter them again? Not like the information is saying anything different.GunGagdin^Moan 19:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay then it's just it really confused me and it looked pretty bad :$ Alex250P (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Karims

What do you think about merging all the Karim character pages into one. I might be able to come up with a small amount of OOU stuff for the family as a whole, but probably not for all each of them individually? This way we could give them images, like we did with the characters from the Banned.GunGagdin^Moan 13:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. I think if OOU stuff can be done for a family but not for the individual characters, a family page is better. What characters are involved? Ashraf, Sufia, any others? I don't think I was watching EE when they were in it so I know nothing about them! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The kids, Shireen and Sohail. I thought about adding them to the minor list, but then we have a good argument to merge all of them and I dont think that's right as they were contracted, supposedly main, characters.GunGagdin^Moan 13:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Go for it then. Karim family? (P.S. realised I started watching EE in about 1993, the earliest storyline I remember seeing is Aidan's suicide attempt.) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? I loved Aidan and Mandy! And original Sam and Hattie and Clyde and all them from that era. I'm a child of the 90s :) I watched in the 80s, but mostly remember that stuff from UK gold. So you never got to see any of the Osmans or Den and Ange?GunGagdin^Moan 13:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I did see some in the 80s as my parents watched it, but I never really got properly into it until 1993. I didn't even get into music until 1992! Sometimes I would drift out of the show but since being on Wikipedia I've never missed an episode! Well, the only episode I know I missed was Lucy's party. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

But what about when you were away for a year? I thought you'd missed the entire year! Then there was that Ferrera (sp) stuff in 2004, enough to make anyone switch off.GunGagdin^Moan 13:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No I still watched it, that was the only episode I didn't manage to watch. I stuck by through the Ferreira storyline. I guess I was loyal to the show even then! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok I started this. Is there a family tree image for them or is it not necessary?GunGagdin^Moan 18:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There's this:

Ashraf Karim

Sufia

Sohail Karim

Shireen Karim

Any good to you? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably not worth it just for the 4 is it? I was thinking it could have included the Jefferys and Rezaul, but I guess that's not possible. Thanks for making it though.GunGagdin^Moan 23:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make it! Some other user made loads of EE family trees in their userspace! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Character Names

I'm getting very confused at the fact that on some pages as an example Stacey Slater she is being but as Stacey Branning (nee Slater) and the same for Roxy. However, they are both separated and refer to themself as their maiden names. Stacey in particular. Just because they are not yet divorced doesn't mean they do not use there maiden names. Some cases are fine such as Tanya but she doesn't call HERSELF Tanya Cross. I just feel that it isn't factually correct. Some people never divorce but that doesn't mean they call themsleves by their husband's name all the time. I feel they should be changed, does anybody agree? Alex250P (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, I never liked the way this project alters character names so quickly after they marry on-screen, especially as the marriages typically last 5 minutes. But, if you talking about prose in the article, then what tends to happen is that when the history is being discussed, the name of the character at that point in the storyline is used. For instance, if someone writes about Pat in Pauline's article from the 1992 era, Pat Bucther would be used, but if they write about her from 1986, Pat Wicks is used. Does that make sense?GunGagdin^Moan 16:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Alex is talking about the opening line, "Roxy Slater (nee Mitchell)" versus "Roxy Mitchell (previously Slater)", and the same for Stacey. Roxy and Stacey should "legally" be named Slater and Branning but appear to use their maiden names on-screen. I've always argued for "legal" names, even after a divorce, but to be honest I'm not that bothered anymore. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh Ok, I dont have an opinion on that. I suppose if she is meant legally to be a Slater, then that should say Slater til they're divorced.GunGagdin^Moan 18:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think I'll change them back seen as though they are the names they use themselves as characters but if there are any more edit wars etc. I shall reconsider the matter. Alex250P (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Families

Right, so there are pages for the Beale/Fowler family and the Mitchell family (if memory serves), each with a family tree. I've done some work on family trees for EastEnders families: User:DBD/EE. Do we think we could write decent pages about most families, i.e. the larger ones? And then one article about lesser families? Let me know. DBD 17:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Great job. I just wish there was a way we could house the tree images without all the excessive plot description. The current family pages are a waste of space, apart from the family tree image. They're just repeats of character pages, unsourced, and in-universe. If a deletionist ever bothered to AFD them, there would be no grounds to keep them.GunGagdin^Moan 19:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Gungadin. The family trees are great, and something I've wanted to work on but never got around to. The only one I've done was the Flaherty family one. We had an EastEnders families article before and it was deleted, but it was just a list. The family trees are pretty much the same thing as that though, displayed in a different way. They had no storylines information, but I agree with Gungadin about the storyline information in the existing articles. We have a few images of family trees, which I think is the only way we could actually have family trees here on Wikipedia, other than in userspace. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 19:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just done the Watts family page - long overdue imo. In doing it I have tried to avoid just rehashing plot which alot of the family pages do, but focus instead on the interaction of the characters (eg: relationship with Den), the primary characteristics defining the Watts as a family (strong, independent), and the thematic aspects of the family (eg: the Vic, feud with Mitchells, etc.). I hope you find this a more beneficial framework. I have also included a family tree. Finally, I hope to go through the various character pages of the Watts over the next few months and see if/how they can be improved. Familiae Watts (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

EE fact on DYK!

Go look now, quick!!! :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Status

This has been discussed before but I dont think a definite decision was made. I would like to get rid of this section from the iboxes, because it never remains stable. Marriages, if there are any, are displayed in the family section, Characters go in and out of relationships, and "in a relationship" still means that a person is legally single, so I just think it's kind of pointless to put that. Should we delete from the template? --GunGagdin^Moan 10:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, say a character has been in a relationship with another character for say a year or maybe two but never married, then putting them as single would be false information. I think it's fine to be honest and it isn't much trouble editing it if a character exits or enters a relationship is it? Alex250P (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not false information. If that person was real, in the eyes of the law they are single, doesnt matter if they have been dating for a year. Plus, it is a needless category. Why is it relevant information for the info box, whether they are dating someone? For instance, Chelsea was dating, single, dating, single, all in the space of a few episodes. How pointless to continuosly change the status in the infobox on a daily basis. Particularly as she would still legally be single anyway. I think it should be scrapped. Marriage is indicated in family section, anything else isnt important. --GunGagdin^Moan 13:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think as far as possible infoboxes are supposed to be relevant to the character as a whole. To take Bradley as a random example, putting in that infobox that he's in a relationship with Syd is only reflective of the past few weeks of a show, placing undue weight on it. There's the alternative of adding a Romances parameter, but tbh in soaps, where the characters are bedhopping every other episode, I think that would quickly end up unwieldy. Frickative 13:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had a problem with status for ages because "in a relationship" isn't a legal status, so in reality you'd still have to say "single" or "divorced" or "widowed" or whatever. Marriage is indicated in the family section, and now has dates so you know if the marriage has ended. I say scrap the status. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I still disagree, if the pages are all suppose to be 'legal information' then why is there a page called Minty Peterson and not Rick Peterson? I think just because it isn't legal doesn't mean it isn't worth including. Alex250P (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Because that's his common name, there's a policy explaining that Wikipedia:COMMONAME. Regarding whether it's necessary to state whether a character is in a relationship in infoboxes, consensus here suggests that it's not needed. GunGagdin^Moan 21:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I still dont' think however that the whole status thing is a big problem, it gives a more accurate information of the character and say a person who had never noticed teh change looked at one of these to gain information as that is what Wikipedia is about, it would show him as single when he isn't single, he is in a relationship with another woman. Alex250P (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

All the more reason to get rid of it then. GunGagdin^Moan 19:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

How many people thought to update Jack and Ronnie's statuses tonight? It never even occured to me. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the best argument for removing status is that it changes all the time, and the infobox shouldn't represent "now" but the entire time the character is in the show, for the same reason storylines should be written in present tense, not past tense. For the same reason I've often thought we should include all the jobs a character has done under "occupation" and not just the one they're doing in the latest episodes. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Very good point about the jobs.GunGagdin^Moan 23:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, about the jobs how about as an example:

Occupations

Firefighter (1988-1992)
Waiter (1994-1999)
Travel Agent (2002—)

How about that?? Alex250P (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added some breaks to the list, as I assume that's what you meant. Yeah that looks good. Though we should only include the most notable jobs too... not something someone did for a week :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as no one else has commented on this. I say we delete status now.GunGagdin^Moan 17:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and do it quick ;) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that it's gone, shall I use AWB to remove the status field from all the infoboxes? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well now you've suddenly just got rid of them all, do you reckon we put the 'Romances' category in the infoboxes like all the Corrie pages as an example : Maria Connor Alex250P (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not totally opposed to that, but I dont think it's necessary. If we had that I would want it hidden like the family and in a separate drop down to family obviously, as romanaces are not family.GunGagdin^Moan 11:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gungadin. If we do it and it's in a separate drop down box, we'll probably end up having to create more infobox templates. I don't think we should do it. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Listas parameter in project template

Just a minor thing but I think it would be helpful. Should we add a "listas=" parameter in the project template, so that character talk pages are listed in their categories in alphabetical order by last name, instead of first? We can make a bot request to have it added from the defaultsort in the article. Anyone agree/disagree? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

go for itGunGagdin^Moan 18:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I requested it here. Unrelated to this but do you think we should get a bot to archive this talk page as well, as it does on my user talk page? We could have it leave say no less than 10 discussions and only archive those over 60 days old, or something. It'll automatically create new archives when each one is full. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea.GunGagdin^Moan 19:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there any unfinished tasks on this page that we don't want archived just yet? I've copied the awards to do list to the operation:cleanup page so that can be archived from here. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont think so. blimey, it's over a year old! GunGagdin^Moan 20:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it is! We should still use it though. I'm sure there are things that have changed that aren't reflected in our OC. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Status part two

Someone today added to a few articles the reason why marriages ended in infoboxes next to the spouse name. Do you think we should keep this or not? In a way I kind of liked it. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont think it's important information for the info box, for instance, someone said in Sam that her marriage to Andy Hunter ended because she was widowed. Well, that isnt accurate. He chucked her out before that. But, if you like it I wont object to it staying.GunGagdin^Moan 20:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it out, as it'll be worked into the prose of the article anyway. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Characters that will never likely be more than just plot

I think we have a few of these, and even if some were counted as regualr characters, we should think about which ones are ever likely to be classified as notable by wikipedia's standards. Kim McFarlane for example and currently Morgan Jackson.

I wanted to use this as a place where we can discuss whether or not they should be merged to lists, and any others we're uncertain about too.GunGagdin^Moan 21:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've come across loads today as I've been populating the category Category:EastEnders articles in need of real-world perspective. I've not quite finished yet but several of those articles will never be more than just plot. Mainly, I was wondering if the di Marcos could be merged into di Marco family or something. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Other categories to check are Category:Stub-Class EastEnders articles and Category:Start-Class EastEnders articles. Of course, lots of them could be more than just plot, so I'd say deal with the stubs first. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I had thought of merging di marcos before, and I couldnt decide because I think there's arguments for keeping Beppe and possibly Gianni separate, and I have loads of sources that I have yet to include to Rosa where Louise Jameson is whinging on about being axed and then being killed off. And with the various books I could possibly do peronality sections for each. But I suppose that doesn't mean it couldnt all be combined in a family article. If we do keep them separate though, I think the grandparents should be merged together.GunGagdin^Moan 22:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well if you have sources then you'll get around to it eventually. Ah, looking at them now, I see Bruno, Luisa and Rosa are ok, but Bruno and Luisa look the same so they could be merged. Bruno and Luisa di Marco???? Joe's in a minor list, and Beppe and Gianni could probably be expanded, which just leaves Nicky, Theresa and Sandra, which are all stubs. I'd like to suggest Richard Cole (EastEnders) goes to a list as I looked for sources today after someone added the rumour that he's returning (which is untrue) and I found absolutely nothing at all. Though as you say, there are books too... but only the people with the books can write them up. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Only thing is, a lot of it will be repeated, such as reception and creation, so that's another reason why merging would make sense. Nicky and Teresa are going to be difficult to write for. Before merging Tricky Dicky, I'll have a go at trying to turn it into something worthwhile. I have some time off coming up so will try to fit that in. If we cant find anything then we'll have to merge. Shame though, because he wasnt minor and he would have had a fair bit of media coverage at the time; sadly, that was before the internet was around. Google was planning a scheme giving free access to every newspaper article ever written. I read about that last year sometime. They're scanning them all in [35]. Should be good for old EE articles if they ever get UK media on there.GunGagdin^Moan 22:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps a di Marco family page would be a good idea then, and we could make it more like the Karim one rather than the Ferreira one, with each character having their own storyline section, but just one creation section and one reception section for the lot. I hope Google do that newspaper thing, it would be so brilliant for us! I nominate Kenny Beale to go to a minor page! And definitely Tom Stuart, 100%. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely for both of those. I think Trampikey wanted Kenny to have his own page for some reason, but even if we could write something with references, he was only ever minor.GunGagdin^Moan 23:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Asif Malik? GunGagdin^Moan 19:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. He was in it for a long time but was still only minor, and didn't really have his own storylines. Send him to a list :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a rare thing for any child character to actually have sufficient notability to warrant a standalone article. As such, I'd suggest merging Dotty Cotton, Ben Mitchell, Abi Branning, Morgan Jackson-King and Tiffany Dean. Dotty & Abi have got one reliable source each, Ben's got none, and Tiff's is more about the return of Bianca's clan than her - though if she starts beating that child of the corn from Hollyoaks in kiddie awards she'd have a better claim for notability. I think of the current lot of kids, the only ones that are really likely to meet the guidelines are Lauren Branning - although that's really just for the pedophile stuff, so it's tenuous if one storyline is really enough, and Jay Brown. Oh, I missed off Lucy and Peter Beale. Good candidates for merging too. (And though not a child, Brenda Boyle. Even if there are one or two sources out there on the web, she's definitely an exceptionally minor character.) Frickative 18:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree in part. Peter Beale has had no significat storylines of note, although I suppose something could be discussed concerning the various actor changes and the stunt he did where he nearly drown. I think Lucy's one of the most notable out of all the child characters though, she had the runaway stuff and the teenage sex stuff with Craig that could be discussed. Ben's another one who probably could get a fair enough article written about him due to the child abuse and also Jay. I think Tiffany currently has enough to merit her own article, maybe Lauren too, but the rest don't. Brenda Boyle should be a definite merge imo.GunGagdin^Moan 19:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From how the articles are currently written I'd say... Dotty: merge. Ben: merge. Abi: merge. Morgan: merge. Tiffany: she already won Best Dramatic Performance from a young actor or actress at the British Soap Awards, so I think she should stay as she is. Lauren: reduce plot first, then merge. Jay: keep. Lucy: merge. Peter: merge. Brenda: definitely merge, but her secret will be revealed soon. But if development sections can be added, go for it. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

With Lucy, I did think there may be sources out there because of all her teenage tearaway stuff, but given that she's been around for sixteen years and the article's single reference is to walford.net, it doesn't really reflect it. If it's likely there are sources to be found, that's cool though. A quick Guardian search for Ben shot back a bunch of results, and I didn't realise Tiffany had already won an award, which'll teach me to read more carefully in future, oops. Frickative 19:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I just added Development and Reception stuff to the Ben article & think it's fine to stay now. The reception bit needs trimming down and paraphrasing, but some of the reviews are absolutely hilarious. Frickative 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Great stuff and for the Lucy page too, I dont know how you get these things done so quickly :) GunGagdin^Moan 12:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Romances Tab

Well seen as though you've already removed the 'Status' section on the infobox I think if you are not going to put it back then we should at least include a romance thing in the infobox such as the Corrie ones, personally I hate the Corrie infoboxes as with the EE ones you can define a relationship alot better so what do you think? Alex250P (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit torn on this one. 'Romances' would be more representative of the character as a whole, as it's applicable to the entire show rather than whatever the current storyline dictates. However, with shows as long-running as EastEnders and Coronation Street, characters inevitably end up having a ridiculous number of romances which aren't particularly notable overall. As an example, although not an EastEnders character, I seem to recall the Ken Barlow article saying he'd had something in the region of 27 girlfriends. To display each and every one of them in the infobox when only a handful are even notable enough to mention in the Storylines section would just be silly. (On a similar note, I regularly think the size of the 'Family' parameters for characters like Liam Butcher are equally daft for the same reason - is it really anything more than trivia to note that Nellie Ellis is his second cousin four times removed?) Frickative 18:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes the family is excessive in some of them. It was included as a compromise to get them out of the main body of the article as Trampikey was quite keen on listing all the family at the time. I dont care too much about that as it's hidden and I never look at it, so i'm not overly fussed if it stays or goes.

I think that if we have romances, it will have to be hidden, but I dont see the need as any relationships of note will be in the prose. I wont oppose it if it's what people want. And Alex, you already asked this a few days ago anyway.GunGagdin^Moan 19:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If we do romances, would they be listed with family or in a separate drop down box? If separate, it may mean the creation of more infoboxes. And I'm against that. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the family section should be cut down in the situations such as Liam Butcher, it is factual after all and is presented in an easy to find way. I think the romances should maybe go on a basis of like dated for more than four months, then it classes, unless it is important such as Roxy Mitchell and Jack Branning, they have slept together and kissed, however never embarked in a relationship but should be noted seen as though they have a child together? Or should it just be kept to actual relationships and leave out flings? Also I think the use of years are important if we do do, it like as an example if we were doing it for Whitney Dean it would be something like: Tony King (2004-2007, 2008) Todd Taylor (2008, 2009)

Alex250P (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It all seems rather complicated to me, what with time limits and notable flings and such, and for that reason I'm out. Erm, I mean I'm quite against doing it. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, to make it easier I think we should just keep it like Corrie, any relationship they've had just document their name and (if available) character profile and the duration of the relationship as an example (Tony King 2004-2007, 2008) etc. ::::Alex250P (talk)

I vote no, sorry.GunGagdin^Moan 00:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well what shall we do, just leave it as it is? Alex250P (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it depends on what the outcome of this is. I vote no, AP votes no. You vote yes, and Frickative hasnt yet decided and others may want to vote too. Thinking about it though, it would be a way to reduce plot at times, in the same way it now isnt necessary to include family in the prose.GunGagdin^Moan 12:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If a relationship is notable, it should be mentioned in the prose. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's basically my stance, I think. I really don't mind it for shows that aren't as long running, because then each romance tends to be notable from a storyline POV, but when characters have had dozens of partners, one night stand and drunken fumbles, to list them all in the infobox is really just non-notable trivia. It's not at all important to an encyclopaedic understanding of say, Phil Mitchell, to have a list of everyone's he's groped dating back 19 years. Which is basically a long-winded way of saying I don't think it's for the best for EastEnders articles. Frickative 13:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Boris

Apparently Boris Johnson is appearing in EastEnders as himself (sources: Daily Mirror, The Herald). Obviously we can't have a character page for him though possibly a part in "others" in the list of 2009 minor characters? I dunno! Will need mention somewhere, like alongside the Robbie Williams bit, assuming he's also mentioned somewhere! Will the Boris article become part of the EE project? Scary thought! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

hmmm, he's not a fictional character so I suppose he wont belong in any character lists. Maybe he can get his own Cameo section in the minors? 08:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah he's not fictional at all, is he? He's not a character. But he'll be credited, and he'll have a bit of storyline. Maybe a cameo section would work :) Still, we have until about September to think about it. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Just putting more sources for this here: Digital Spy, Daily Mail, BBC News AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Something else about Boris: Boris Johnson blew his EastEnders lines. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

MINOR LISTS

I was just considering, do you think we go a bit OTT with the characters we include in the minor lists? Reason I say this i because we currently have 700+ characters in the Ee character category. Some of them are characters that no one, not even EE's biggest fan, would ever be likely to look up or remember. In these instances I think they shouldnt be categorised and instead get a place in the Others lists. We can save the lists for ones that were more notable than Anna Price for instance and who actually had at least some role in the soap that viewers are likely to be interested in or remember. Not saying we should definitely alter this, but i'm just interested in other people's opinions.GunGagdin^Moan 18:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Others lists on the minor pages concern me, because I'm not sure there's really any encyclopaedic value in being able to look up who Naomi's mortgage advisor was, or that an uncredited girl called Rachel attended Abi's birthday party on 23 June 2008. That said, it does sometimes seem a bit indiscriminate who ends up listed under Others and who's treated as a minor character proper, so a tighter interpretation of the distinction between the two would be a good place to start in making sure those on the minor lists are actually notable. Frickative 18:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

initially there were disagreements about whether the lists should even be made. Previosuly, all these ridiculously minor characters were being given their own page. There were also disagreements in the project about who exactly should be permitted to remain on the past EE cast list, with some thinking there should be no exclusions and the list should be complete, and others basing character exclusions on things such as if the minor characters were given a last name. Because it was felt that it was important to have a reasonably complete cast list, the others sesction was added to the minor lists (once we got agreement for them to be made) for any random character who was even more minor than the minors!! and this tended to be characters who were not given a surname and therefore not linked from the past EE character list. Does this make any sense at all? :)

However, all these were unspoken rules often done to keep the peace and nothing has ever been set in stone. It should also be noted that some characters who have a surname are even less notable than the ones that are given only one name, yet often they have been given infoboxes and their own sextion in the minors list. I currently think sections in the minors list should not be given to the glorified extras, i.e. they should have more of a role than a line in one episode, or they should be added to others. GunGagdin^Moan 20:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we're a bit OTT, maybe we're not. I don't know. But I'm still working on a complete cast list, which includes actors who portrayed the most minor of characters, if that's of any interest. Oh I like you spelling of "sextion" :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

How Freudian of me :) Yes I think we do need a complete cast list, but maybe we could do what Brookside did and have a sundry actors list? GunGagdin^Moan 22:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Brookside cast members is very short, and I can't see any other list anywhere. My page is at User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders cast members and I was going to make it live once I'd listed everyone I have and added durations (and maybe found sources). I took inspiration from the Doctor Who list. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

They used to have a HUGE sundry list, because the lady who played Neelam Kapoor was on it. GunGagdin^Moan 23:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WHO1992

This idiot who alters dates constantly is back.Keep an eye out for innaccurate dates being added by him to infoboxes.GunGagdin^Moan 11:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

We know all the dates are correct so I'll revert any date changes I see. Every EE page is on my watchlist so I won't miss anything. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Some people, it's like they have nothing better to do :S Alex250P (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OOU=YES on talk page

Is that supposed to show something up on the talk page headeer when you say yes? Or is it supposed to categorise them? Because it doesnt seem to do it, or am I missing something? GunGagdin^Moan 23:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OOU=no puts it in a category. OOU=yes does nothing but I started putting yes instead of removing it as then it shows the article has actually been checked and assessed as having out-of-universe stuff. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Whitney Week"

Does anybody think the "Whitney Week" storyline is worth having its own article? I think it's notable as it won an award, but as it's some time ago I don't really remember what happened other than Bianca going a bit mental, and maybe it's all covered in Whitney's page anyway. Thoughts? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, one thing if you told me about Sharongate or The Secret Mitchell I would know what you were talking about but Whitney Week? Nah, I don't think it needs it's own article as it is all covered well in Whitney's. It was nominated for GA so I think it's fine as it is. Alex250P (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What was Whitney Week about? The Tony stuff? GunGagdin^Moan 14:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It was the week that Tony and Whitney's affair was exposed. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No reason it cant have its own article I suppose, if someone can be bothered to write it, though I had never heard it called whitney week until now.GunGagdin^Moan 16:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Alex is right. I'd write it but I can't be sure what happened in those episodes. Well, I know summaries can be found on the BBC website... but still, it's all covered in Whitney's article. I probably only know it was called Whitney Week because I do the awards article and got it from that. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The McFarlanes

Shall we do a Karim type family thing for the three McFarlanes? Josie has her own with OOU info, I could do a separate article for Mick, but Kim I could only do a very brief personality section for, so she would likely need to be merged to minors if we keep separate. I'm undecided because Mick appeared 6 years and there's a big gap between when his family arrived and when Josie left, even though they all had barely any storylines of any note.GunGagdin^Moan 14:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, with such a big gap I'd suggest just expanding Mick's page and probably merging Kim with a list. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sock Puppets

Hey everyone, just to let you know that I've created a log where we can keep track of sock puppets and vandalism for EE Wikis. You can find it at [[36]] --5 albert square (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

recreation of deleted article

List of buildings in EastEnders has been recreated despite it being deleted at AFD.GunGagdin^Moan 23:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's now been deleted again. I would have noticed but I must have removed it from my watchlist. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Deepak Verma vs the Masoods

Posting this here because Deepak Verma has criticised the whole of the Masood clan, so unsure if/how to include it in articles. Could include in EastEnders I guess or mention it in all of the Masood articles... any thoughts? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

the masood articles, i think.GunGagdin^Moan 16:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We could say something like "Zainab, along with the rest of the Masood family..." :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've finally got around to doing this! I didn't add it to Shabnam's page because she had already left by then, but feel free to disagree with me about that. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Free-use images

I've borrowed an idea I saw on WP:DOH and created a gallery of free-use images for the project here. Probably not for character articles (maybe could be used in casting sections?), but good for lists and possibly other articles. Please add to the list if you come across (or upload) any other images. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"On screen" vs "on-screen"

I think we need to be careful with our hyphens as I've noticed some mistakes. For example, we would say "She made her first on-screen appearance..." but "She first appeared on screen...", or "They shared their first on-screen kiss...", but "They first kissed on screen...". AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

EastEnders major/minor characters

The following discussion is copied from my user talk page User talk:AnemoneProjectors#EastEnders major/minor characters:

Hi there. As you seem to be the chief EastEnders editor on here, I was wondering what the policy was as to what EE characters qualify for major status (i.e. their own wiki page) or minor status (appearing on the EE minor charcter lists)? It's just at the moment I can't see what the dividing line is? For instance Owen Turner has his own wiki page, but Liz Turner does not, yet both characters have featured for roughly the same amount of time in EE. Similarly, Callum Monks has his own wiki page, but Syd Chambers does not. Even though again, both charcters appeared in EE for roughly the same amount of time. Can I ask, who makes the final decisions on which characters get their own pages, and what is the criteria? At the moment its seems a little arbitrary. Bleaney (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Often the decisions are made over at WP:EASTENDERS, though there are very few of us so it's normally just me and User:Gungadin, who I think s on Wikibreak at the moment. One of the main things we go by is how much information we have that describes the character from a real-world perspective, unless the character is definitely main or definitely minor. I guess the four you mentioned could be considered either minor or major. Liz hasn't really had her own storylines and has nothing from the real world, whereas Owen has a pretty good reception section. Callum has some information in a creation section, but it is a very short article and could probably be merged with one of the lists. We tend to discuss which character pages to merge, often on that article's talk page, though not always. It's only really this year that we've started putting new characters straight into the lists of minor characters instead of creating a new article, so they tend to stay there unless they can be substantially expanded. Examples are Syd, Theo Kelly (EastEnders) and Joel Reynolds (EastEnders). Basically, some characters seem to pass the general notability guideline and get their own articles, others don't and are stuck in a list. Does that help??! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

To a point. It still seems a little arbitrary though. Could I make a suggestion? How about all characters that have appeared regularly for more than 6 months qualify for their own page? 6 months is the shortest standard contract that EE will give to an actor playing a regular EE character. I'm not sure that I agree with you about Liz either, and this is what I mean: Saying Liz hasn't really had her own storylines is subjective, its not quantifiable. Its also likely that younger characters or well known actors will get more critical reception that is sourceable. But I cant see how this is fair on older charcters? Surely a time-frame or number of episode appearances would be a more scientific way of sorting this? Bleaney (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Further to this - Have just noticed that Glenda Mitchell already has her own character page, yet Qadim Shah doesn't. Neither of these charcters have even appeared yet, and we dont know how long either of them are staying! Further to my above suggestion, maybe all new characters should only be classed as minor until they pass the key 6 month mark of appearances? Bleaney (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me, though we sometimes come across the problem of articles being nominated for deletion because there's a lack of sources and real-world information. For example, Syd Chambers was in the show for 8 months but I don't feel there's enough material for there to be a separate page. We've been trying to avoid future AFDs by expanding articles where we can and merging them to the lists where we can't. Maybe you're right that we should just say "over six months = separate article; under six = minor", and then see what happens. I'd like to hear from other members of the EastEnders WikiProject before we change anything though, especially Gungadin. Maybe we should discuss this at WT:EE. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would happy for this discussion to be transferred to WT:EE. I'm going to join WP:EASTENDERS as well, so my voice can be heard! Bleaney (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Would anybody else like to comment on this (here, not there)? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think for notability reasons, it's important to decide these things on an article by article basis rather than setting a deciding time limit. Notability isn't inherited from the parent show, so simply having appeared in EastEnders for six months is no guarantee that a character is independently notable enough to qualify for a stand-alone article. For instance, Tony King (3 months tenure) received a great deal of coverage in independent sources and is clearly notable, while Tracy (13 years tenure) is not. Frickative 18:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

But article by article seems to produce some arbitrary results, such as Callum Monks as opposed to Syd Chambers. Surely if characters reach the 6 motnh mark we (as editors) can trawl the web to beef up the articles? Bleaney (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, but ultimately if there are no substantial sources to be found, I don't think the fact the character has been there for a set time limit should be the deciding factor in whether to create an independent article or not anyway. For instance, I've just searced The Guardian, The Times, The Independent and The Telegraph and found no results for "Syd Chambers". Perhaps there'll be some mentions in the tabloids, but so far I'm seeing nothing that suggests the character is sufficiently notable. That said, I've just glanced at the Callum article too, and given that there's only 1 reliable source independent of the subject there, I have doubts that that one is notable enough either. Frickative 18:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is my point lol. My suggestion is this - ALL new EE characters will start on the minor characters list. After 6 months worth of regular appearances, the character will be reviewed, and if enough notable sources can be found, then the article is automatically upgraded to its own page. In the rare examples of characters becoming notable BEFORE 6 months (eg Tony King) then these can be discussed on a case by case basis. Have also been digging around about Syd Chambers, and the actress who plays her has a few sources concerning her claim that EE isnt black enough in relation to her character. This could be added to gain notability. Bleaney (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, for some reason I thought you were suggesting that 6 month+ characters automatically get individual articles, regardless of sources. My bad for misunderstanding, and yes, what you've clarified above sounds reasonable. The vast majority of characters aren't sufficiently notable from the beginning anyway, so I'm not opposed to classing them all as minor to start with. Frickative 19:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

All sounds good to me. Do we think Glenda Mitchell is ok as a separate article or should we create a list for minor characters appearing in 2010? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats a difficult one. The only thing so far that has made the character particularly notable is that she was recast. All the rest (the possibilty she will become the new 'head' of the Mitchells or face of the Queen Vic after Peggy's departure etc) is pure speculation at this stage, we dont even know how long the character will feature! If we are to adopt this idea, I think making Glenda a minor would set a good precedent. Bleaney (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with you. I'm gonna do it. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I think the article looks great, but based solely on the fact the only sources are 2 from Digital Spy and 1 from the EastEnders website, I think merging to minors for now is the right call. Frickative 19:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

OK then. If I can assume this idea is passed, can I start working back from List of minor EastEnders characters (2009) and the corresponding section of List of past EastEnders characters? Any characters appearing for less than 6 months will be relegated to minor status (unless very notable such as Tony King etc). Similarly if I can dredge up notability for characters appearing longer than 6 months, i'll create separate pages for them. I'll also take a look at some borderline characters like Callum Monks, and see which way they fall. Is that OK? Bleaney (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That's ok with me but don't forget that some characters were only recurring such as Debra Dean, so although her first and last dates are more than 6 months apart, she wasn't in the show for 6 months. I don't know how familiar you are with the show. You can ask if you have any queries. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, all EastEnders pages are on my watchlist so if there's anything I disagree with I'll let you know! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Dont worry lol, i'm an avid fan, and have been since 1985! I know the difference between a regular, a recurring character and an extra. I'm also not going to touch the current cast list for now either, only past characters. Let me know if you dissagree, though if we stay with the 6 month rule in general, the only disagreements should be over proof of notability. Bleaney (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Brief visit to say all this is good by me, except i'm still not sure Syd is worthy of her own article. Perhaps if she was returning with more possiblity for expansion? I dont know if she is, but if she is then no objections.GunGagdin^Moan 23:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, now that it's done I'm not sure either. It just looks a bit short to me. But let's just leave it and see what happens now. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I remind everyone, that the length of an article is not a mark of its notability. There are plenty of stub articles on wikipedia much shorter than the Syd Chambers article, with no sources, which are still deemed notable. It should also be mentioned, that while shorter, Syd's article has more sources than that of Dr Al Jenkins, or the previosuly mentioned Callum Monks. Flowery language or long quotes from a source do not make an article any more notable. Bleaney (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we're all aware that length does not equal notability. The EastEnders WikiProject has been responsible for actively and drastically shortening a great many articles that were nothing more than thousands of words of plot recaps, so that's not really an issue here. The Syd Chambers article is still problematic, in my opinion, because I'm not convinced that it meets the requirement of significant coverage in independent sources. The first two references are fine, but the third is just a trivial mention. In the absence of any other sources, I just don't think it's adequately notable. That other articles have fewer sources isn't an argument to keep this one, it just suggests that we should consider merging those into lists as well. Frickative 01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends I suppose whether you an inclusionist or a deletionist on wikipedia. I'm an inclusionist, and I want to try to improve EE articles, and help you guys who seem to be largely reduced to a Wikiproject of 2! The 3 sources in the article satisfy notability in my opinion, particularly the article from the Sun. Significant coverage is always a subjective term anyway, how do you define significant? Cartainly in other areas of wikipedia, these sources would be seen as sufficient to prove notability. Bleaney (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Significant" is of course subjective, but I don't think one piece on an entertainment website, one piece in a tabloid (which is actually more about the actress's opinion of the show than it is about the character) and one trivial mention in a plot write-up constitute significant. I'm all for inclusion when it's warranted, but in this case I don't think it is. I'm generally happy to go along with consensus however, so if both AnemoneProjecters and Gungadin think this particular article is fine, I won't argue the point. I don't think we should make a habit of starting articles with only two decent-ish sources, however. It just makes the Project a target for deletion debates. Frickative 03:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And it is that attitude that worries me. We are supposed to 'be bold' on wikipedia, and if that means battling on AfD every now and then... so be it! What's the worst that happens? The article gets re-merged with the minor character list. No biggie. And by the way, if what you say is true, surely we should already be the target of deletion debates, with character pages like Callum Monks and Doctor Al Jenkins? We dont seem to be though. The whole idea of the 6 month yard stick is so that we can upgrade regular characters to their own page at an appropriate time, illustrating their difference between guest or recurring characters. Bleaney (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but if this 6 month yard stick is going to result in routinely upgrading characters without demonstrating adequate notability, as was my original concern, and as I believe has been the case with Syd Chambers, then I'm going to have to revoke my support of it. I don't have much more to add on the subject, so I'm going to cease replying until AP and Gungadin have had a chance to chip back in. I just want to add, though, that I know tone can be difficult to convey in text, so I apologise if I'm coming across as excessively adversarial in this. I do of course appreciate you wanting to help improve EastEnders articles :) Frickative 04:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You guys sure were up late last night talking about this! I think I'm more inclined to agree with Frickative in that the Syd Chambers article doesn't meet the requirement of significant coverage in independent sources. I'm also not so sure about the six month yardstick, as some characters don't demonstrate their notability after that amount of time, while others do before then, such as Tony King or Adam Best (EastEnders). I think the problem is how we define "minor characters", as obviously some characters that could be considered minor have their own articles, and some that might be considered non-minor are sitting in lists. Maybe we just need to treat "minor characters" as just "characters that don't meet the general notability guidelines" which I think is what we've been doing up to now, as Gungadin and I have had several discussions about several characters that have been merged with lists, and we said it's good to have plenty of sources in those lists as they've all been AFDed in the past. I think Syd Chambers and Callum Monks should be merged with lists. I think some current characters at the moment maybe don't meet the general notability guideline, such as Amira Shah, Manda Best and Dotty Cotton, but I think we can keep them as they are for now and if they end up leaving soon-ish, and aren't as long term as we may have thought (like Theo Kelly (EastEnders) and Joel Reynolds (EastEnders)) then consider merging them to lists then. Apart from Dotty, I think that article should go back to a list now. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I dont want to go against the tide. All I ever wanted was parity between similarly important characters. I'm quite happy for Syd to be merged into the minors list, as longs as the likes of Callum Monks are too. I appreciate its hard to have a definitive yardstick for all characters, so can I suggest instead that we keep the 6 months rule in general for new characters? That is, we DONT create separate articles for any new characters until at least they pass 6 months, UNLESS they prove to be SUPER notable, in which case we discuss on here firt? Bleaney (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

But if a character gets enough coverage and there's enough real world content, then by wikipedia's standards they would be entitled to their own page whether they have appeared for 6 months or not. I'm happy to go with Bleaney's idea though, and we can discuss unmerging characters if we feel we need to.

I think a lot editors tend to feel that a character included on a list is inferior because it doesn't have it's own page. I used to feel like this too, but redirects to sections and categorising of redirect links have altered my thinking, because when i click on a merged character i'm taken to the precise section, which is no different than if I was taken to a separate page.

I do agree that some characters on the lists are not necessarily minor. Perhaps we could merge arguably non-minor/boderline characters like Syd, Callum etc into a different list, if anyone can think of a title? It's not that I wouldnt prefer all characters who have been given a fixed contract of 6 months or longer to have their own page, I would, but wikipedia wouldnt and fighting AFD after AFD is stressful, particularly when there isnt many of us around to argue to keep anymore. In the past when this has happened, I have been more than willing to work on the articles during the AFD to bring them in line with policy, rewriting and adding sources etc, but sadly due to work commitments I get barely any time to edit at the moment.

I think past characters articles be judged for potential for expansion of real world info, so even if some articles dont have any sources/real world info at present, we consider whether they could ever be much more than plot--GunGagdin^Moan 19:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure i'd like to see another list, as again, we would have some characters that would be borderline major/minor. I have another suggestion though. What if we rename the lists to List of EastEnders characters (XXXX), and list ALL characters who debuted that year. If a charcter has a separate page, this remains but with a redirect from the list. Bleaney (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't like to see another list, but I'm also not sure I like the idea of listing all characters that debuted that year, though I know it would just be a section with a {{main}} link in it and nothing else. But it would help with the problem of having non-minor characters in lists of minor characters. I'm not sure there are that many though. If there are many more than just the ones we've already named, Syd, Callum etc, then maybe it's a good idea, but those are borderline main/minor so I think they're ok being listed as minor. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)