Jump to content

Talk:EastEnders/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible sources

[edit]

EastEnders a bad influence on children?

[edit]

Big Brother and Little Britain 'fuelling bad behaviour in schools'. Hmm anemone│projectors 16:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it's the most violent of all the soaps. Oh dear. anemone│projectors 17:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

[edit]

I've had a look at some of this article today and noticed a few problems:

  • Social realism: focuses too much on 2000s
  • YouTube: this section includes information on adverts and I can't see where they should go. Perhaps a new section?
  • Popularity and viewership: I haven't read this section but it seems to focus too much on the period between 2004 and 2008
  • Critique: possibly too detailed?

Other than that, the references need sorting out. I'm going to do what I can, though. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also wondering if certain parts of the critique and social realism sections could be moved into the characters section. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

§§§§§So, just read through the critique section and you are 100% right. Some stuff, imo, can just be cut entirely from it:

  • comment over Wendy Richards leaving because character was married
  • Danielle's death - just a tragic storyline, not really a social/cultural criticism of the show

Also

  • Because things like Mark's HIV and Janet Mitchells downsyndrome are covered extensively in their respective articles, we could perhaps simply just refer to them with a link, and still highlight their prominence in the show; something like "EastEnders have prominently explored the issue of AID through Mark Fowler......." or whatever.
  • It may also be good to break down the criticism into subsections to give the section more structure; perhaps subsections for "representation of minorities" (Irish, Asian, Black criticisms) or "charges of sensationalism" (becoming to violent, scripts not making sense, etc).

To give a proper representation we should perhaps try and limit references to storylines to a 1:1:1 pattern (85-94; 95-2002; 2003-09). We don't have to get all facist about it, but it would remove the clear imbalance towards recent storylines. We should probably though, end with a "most recent" issue/controversy to conclude the section.... "Most recently the homosexual relationship between Christian Clark and Syed Masood has sparked controversy".... or words to that effect. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with all of your suggestions, apart from adding a most recent one, because it'll need constant updating. The most recent one can be included, but I don't think we should say "Most recently" because it dates quickly. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DR. who crossover

[edit]

I can find no mention of the dr. who cross over Dimensions in Time. If its there tell me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.20.92 (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not there, but none of the spin offs, such as Civvy Street, are mentioned either, though there is a link to List of EastEnders television spin-offs. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders Ratings

[edit]

Personally I'm not too sure about why there should be a subsection on 2004 Ratings decline and on 2008 ratings recovery.... in part because neither of those years can be pin-pointed down as the article makes out (ie: there is no consensus); for every article that says ratings declined in 2004, there are others for 05, 06, 07 - even 08. Besides which, I also feel there is far too much attention given to the ratings decline in 2004 and 2005 - particularly as there is little reference to 2006 which is, to my knowledge, EE worst rating year with its biggest ratings decline. It would probably be more accurate to have a 2006 ratings decline subsection; then talk about a recovery which occured from mid-07 through to 08, and which has now stabilised.

Does anyone else think this section needs to be more accurately re-written? Or is it just me? :)Familiae Watts (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Popularity and viewership section needs to berewritten. There is way too much emphasis on the last five years but the show has been going for 25. The critique section is probably too long as well. By the way, I've been working on a list of EastEnders ratings in my userspace but it's taking a long time to do! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed your ratings page.... must be very tiresome!!!!! I think, as getting this article back up to FA standard is on the projcet log, that perhaps you, me, Gungadin, Trampikey, whoniverse, and others should perhaps try and make a concerted effort to do it up in January?? Perhaps make a separate project page or something for it to organise thoughts, or archive this talk page. But I agree entirely with your sentiments on the popularity and viewership section. The good thing about this article is that there are large chunks that are fine.Familiae Watt§ (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Trampikey seems to have left the project, but Frickative is a VERY good editor. After my ratings project I've set myself a Youtube project, to catalogue all the EastEnders videos that have been officially uploaded there! That'll be even worse. Oh, have a look at the "Problems" section on this talk page for some of my findings. I didn't get any replies! We can archive the majority of this page if you want to make it easier to talk about changes. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think archiving would make it easier to talk. Yes, I had a look at the issues you raised in the problem section (which is what first made me realise how imbalanced the viewership section was); I agree with all that you say. And I wish you the best with the youtube project - when completed it will definately be immensely helpful and really a good resource - but getting there: I don't envy you at all! ;) I don't mind helping with the Watts clips, naturally (but that isn't going to make that much of a help! ;))Familiae Watt§ (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The archive is done. I've left the sections relating to improvements that haven't been dealt with. (My Youtube project is going to be VERY difficult, trying to help me out won't be very helpful really.) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for archiving.... and for what it's worth I think you are right on both counts re your youtube project. It's the type of thing that you will need to develop a personal system for, and having someone else come in - more trouble than worth, really.Familiae Watt§ (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, in light of the recent ratings success of the 25th anniversary ep - the best since... 2004? (although I should not that it had a slightly smaller average audience share than the 20th anny ep ;) ), I feel it may be a good time to sort this section out. The above discussion is, obviously, a good starting point - but I was wondering what people think should be kept and ensured referred to in this section. Personally, I am almost inclined to shelve the whole section and start from new - but in doing so I would probably not include things that others think relevant. I don't think there should be any division within the section (remove the ridiculius 2004-decline; 2008-recover subsection titles. As far as the 00s go, I personally think points (and corresponding references) should take note of:

  • move to 4 eps a week (need ref)
  • ratings success of Slater family (??) (need ref)
  • Corrie top form 2003 > pressure on EE (have a source)
  • View that Den's return an example of leading a show by ratings concern (have a source)
  • Popular "couplings" marking 00s > Alfie & Kat; Shannis (others?) (have a source)
  • 2006 ratings bomb!! (have 1 source but need more)
  • recovery in later 00s (sources)

We should takee care not to be too repetitive and bear in mind info that is addressed elsewhere. For instance, the 25th anniversary ratings are expanded upon in History of EE (and forthcoming article on Archie Who Dunnit); similarly, 20th annny ep will be addressed in the Den death s/l I will put together (mimicking the Archie one); so they should just be mentioned with references to those pages? Because we don't have as many sources for 80s and 90s, those periods may, of necessity, have to focus around events that we can get ratings for from BARB (or does that count as OR??); whereas, to keep things variable I personally believe we should avoid being led by events for the 00s as there are more sources and we can do a more thematic treatment. I don't envisage or think the section should be any bigger than it is presently (but we can include alot in there - rather than the patch-work it is now). Thoughts? ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 00:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text from article

[edit]
  • "EastEnders proved highly popular and Appreciation Indexes reflected this, rising from 55–60 at the launch to 85–95 later on, a figure which was nearly ten points higher than the average for a British soap opera. Research suggested that people found the characters true to life, the plots believable and, importantly in the face of criticism of the content, people watched as a family and regarded it as viewing for all the family."
  • "Based on market research by BBC commissioning in 2003, EastEnders is most watched by 60–74 year olds, closely followed by 45–59 year olds. An average EastEnders episode attracts a total audience share between 35 and 40%. Aside from that, the 10 p.m. repeat showing on BBC Three attracts an average of 500,000 viewers, whilst the Sunday omnibus generally attracts 3 million."
  • "EastEnders is one of the more popular programmes on British television and regularly attracts between 7 and 12 million viewers[1] and while the show's ratings have fallen since its initial surge in popularity and the advent of multichannel digital television, the programme continues to be largely successful for the BBC. EastEnders two main rival's are ITV soaps Coronation Street and Emmerdale. EastEnders generally rates lower than Coronation Street, and has been beaten by Emmerdale on numerous occasions. In 2001, EastEnders clashed with Coronation Street for the first time. EastEnders won the battle with 8.4 million viewers (41% share) whilst Coronation Street lagged behind with 7.3 million viewers (34% share).[2] EastEnders often clashes with Emmerdale, and this gives the show some of its lowest viewing figures, dropping to below six million. However, the BBC Three repeats often top one million viewers because of this. The live 25th anniversary show on 19 February 2010, which revealed Stacey Branning as Archie Mitchell's killer, received 16.6 million viewers."
  • I would like to remove all this; some of it seems to be verging on peacocking; it is unnecessarily focused on recent events (the last sentence has just been added in willy-nilly). Some of the points can be integrated elsewhere. Should we address the issue of the clashes? I'm inclined to ignore it, at least in the sense it is addressed here - which is basically as justification for EE under-performing. I'm more inclined to just state that the repeats and omnibus add viewers.... the whole EE vs Corrie/EM is very fanboi impo. But others may not think so? ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 05:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The launch show attracted 17 million viewers in 1985; this was perhaps helped by the amount of press attention it received, something which continues today.[3]
On Christmas Day 1986, EastEnders attracted 30.15 million viewers who tuned in to see Den Watts hand over divorce papers to wife Angie. This remains the highest rated episode of a soap in British television history.[4]
Since EastEnders began in 1985, at least one of its episodes has rated higher than any other British soap opera throughout each decade. This includes the 1980s, 1990s and the 2000s."
  • All good info that is important - needs to be better written, but not a problem. Source 3 is rather interesting read (especially given its origin!)

That is all the material prior to, what in my opinion, are 2 rather bad subsections on 2004 and 2008. Quite clearly, ratings prior to 2000 need fleshing out. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 05:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I only just saw this. But all your suggestions sound good to me. Are you willing to do the work? anemoneprojectors talk 16:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Np.... forgotten about it actually :(. I can do it... may take a bit as some work stuff has come up; hopefully I will be able to get to it next weekend sometime, or perhaps earlier - but the next 7 days are busy for me so won't be in that time frame. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 18:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No rush. Don't want you taking on too much at once! Maybe we should try to finish your family page first. anemoneprojectors talk 21:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, probably right.... with that I will just add the Moons and then do the general write up on families so the page can go live.... the other families can just then be added in whenever. With luck though I should be able to get that and this ratings section done next weekend - BUT I'm getting news on Wed that will actually determine whether I will have any time at all... if a work deal goes through I'll have plenty of time, if not I may be hard up till the end of the month. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 01:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episode count

[edit]

I've found out why people are adding lots to the episode count. It's Digital Spy's fault! Look at this, for example: [2]. If anyone changes to the DS count, please revert it, as we have a source for the correct figure. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the BBC News page today and came across this [3]. At the bottom of the page it states Friday's episode as being the 3,952nd. Should we change the episode count because of this? Ooh, Fruity (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like the most reliable source we've got. It would mean that TV.com is missing 12 episodes. I say change it. What do others think? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame there's a discrepancy, but I guess we can always check we're right by adding 12 to the TV.com number, but if we cite the BBC source then it'll be hard to actually verify that the figure is correct as we update it every week or so. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, how do we verify that the figure is correct at the moment anyway? By comparing it to TV.com/IMDb? I agree that the BBC page is the most reliable source at the moment, it's annoying they don't match up though. Frickative 07:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a dispute again. TV.com is up to 3983 (+12 previously established as missing +tonight =3996). DS no longer shows the episode number, as far as I can see. five.tv was added, (this link would be better) showing tonight's to be 3997. We've been updating every week since the live episode and, including tonight's, we're up to 3999. What should we do? If five.tv is accurate, it seems a good source as it always shows the latest episode number. AnemoneProjectors 20:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to the five.tv link because I updated my ratings list and got the same result. I adjusted my numbering when the number of EastEnders Live was given on the BBC site so I know it's accurate. We must have made a mistake somewhere. And now we have a source that is updated for every episode. AnemoneProjectors 16:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SIGH! Holy Soap have treated the last episode as two separate episodes. Although they were recorded as two separate episodes, they were broadcast as just one. What do we do? This has happened before, and when it happened recently, Holy Soap treated it as a single episode. AnemoneProjectors 15:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't new, and pardon me if I appear arrogant in telling you this, but many half hour shows treat their hour long specials as two episodes production wise, this would also help to explain the discrepancy between the BBC and tv.com as well I would imagine, as the BBC is only intereted in production numbers and tv.com actual airdates and episodes. In any case either tallying of episodes is correct, but tv.com would give the more constant source. AcidPenguin (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many one-hour EastEnders episodes are two stuck together, but many aren't. Sometimes they are planned as one-hour episodes. I still think we should use Holy Soap as it is the only source that tallies with a more reliable source for the episode number of "EastEnders Live". AnemoneProjectors 10:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International airing

[edit]

I've just read the paragraph about EastEnders in Eire.

Could somebody who knows plaease review this - the grammar is a bit suspect, and it seems incomplete (the first sentence in particular), but I don't know exactly what was meant, or what the dates should be. Also, the premise that episodes start at the same time in Eire and the UK, but finish up to a minute sooner in Eire due to the adverts is strange to say ther least - especially as BBC 1 doesn't show ads! I've tried workingback throughthe history, but haven't found where this comment was last altered. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone might find this useful...

[edit]

this from the Beeb seems to have quite a bit of detail- might be useful somewhere in the article. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 01:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Production

[edit]

I found this quote from Clive Arnold... "A standard block will mean filming for nine days over a two week period, and shooting days tend to be 11-11.5 hours long. Pre-production is four weeks and post production just one week."[4] Obviously the filming stuff can go in the filming section but does pre- and post-production really belong there or is a new section needed? anemoneprojectors talk 16:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add a new "Post Production" section under "Production". Format (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what about pre-production? Having two new sections with one single line in each seems pretty silly. anemoneprojectors talk 18:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:EastEnders/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Has dead external links tagged from February 2008 and March 2010. Unsourced statements tagged from January 2010, February 2010, September 2008, October 2009 and June 2009. Tom B (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nothing happening, delisted Tom B (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like these:BBC 1, BBC, Beeb NEWS, this article do not deserve to get delisted!They are basically what people think of the Beeb!KEEP. Whoever delist is living under a rock and should probably be thrown with pies, be cooked, be roasted, be turned into snore etc!Keep. Spongebob796 (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Series/seasons

[edit]

Thought I'd bring this up on the talk page as people are editing the comment in the infobox. TV.com, IMDb and other sites say that EastEnders has run for 26 series, but it has not. It isn't split into series by year. This is just the way those sites choose to display the information. It doesn't have series premieres on 1 January and series finales on 31 December. It is just continuous. AnemoneProjectors 11:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it does; although it is broadcast continuously, it still needs to be recommissioned for production by the BBC drama department and the BBC One suits. I'm not quite sure how it works with EastEnders, but Corrie "series" definitely run from 1 January to 31 December. Bradley0110 (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough but until we have a reliable source saying EastEnders has what is considered "series" and that there have been a particular number of them, we can't say there are any. AnemoneProjectors 13:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt even the producers know how many "series" there have been, since they just say "Episode #1234" or whatever (and that then raises further issues since the episode numbers have been reset, what, twice now?) Bradley0110 (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once, as far as I am aware. But that doesn't raise issues, we know the correct number of episodes. See above discussions. AnemoneProjectors 15:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What language is it in?

[edit]

I have seen this program on American television and found it largely unintelligible. I am a native speaker of midwestern american english and I would need subtitles for most of it. Is it cockney? That is mentioned but not as a dialect. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It probably just means you're challenged in some way. The dialogue is completely intelligible to a native American English speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.16 (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I don't think they use an extreme amount of slang but could it just be their East London accents? I suppose an amount of cockney might be involved. I don't really notice it, I just think they talk like me! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's nothing to be ashamed of, most Chinese TV is subtitled. Especially in the 80's iirc, I would catch words here and there, but unless I really paid attention, it really was unintelligible. Perhaps the actors affect the manner of speech and it was more affected then whereas they've lightened up since then. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you find this unintelligible, you should try watching the "northern soaps". Granted, EE isin't exactly BBC English - but most characters nowadays would have a fairly standard English voice - only a couple would 'ave an accentuated Cockney accent and it's not like they are using Cockney slang. It was more extreme in the 80s, though. Today, most actors would use a fairly standard, English RP accent (that has a variable London twang to it) - it would be very surprising if you could not understand recent episodes (since at least the early 00s). And what exactly is "midwestern American English?" ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 23:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say most EastEnders characters have Home Counties accents, rather than "RP-cockney". Sometimes I don't understand what they say in Coronation Street, though (set in Manchester). AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirming, yes the more recent decades are much easier for me as a native Inland Northern American English speaker to understand without effort. I do think this is a salient fact worthy of note in the article. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that as far as accents go, Corrie (and to a lesser extent Emmerdale) have characters that retain incomprehensible accents. But then coming from the south (or mid-east I suppose [East Anglia]) I always found it much more difficult to understand Yorkshire, Manchester and Liverpool accents, than London speak. IMO, with the exception of certain characters like Peggy and Mo (who function as Cockney caricatures anyway), speech in EE is fairly standardised. I mean, Samantha Womack is pretty RP imo - and Charlie has to be one of the poshest cabies I've ever heard! But most of the Brannings have a "normal" English accent, as do the Beales, Foxes, etc. It may be worth mentioning somewhere in the article - perhaps in the social realism section? Definately, when EE started it was much more of an attempt to recreate a Cockney-esque community; and whilst the desire to have a community-feel is still a desire in the show, it is a far more defused one in terms of identity and speech. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 01:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would be good if we could find a source for that stuff and add it. JL, do you know what an RP accent sounds like (I want one)? I'm sticking with Home Counties. They should add an East Anglian character though! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lol, yeah, ok, I suppose RP is a bit too posh - although I still think Samantha Womack has one.... or I'm just thinking Ronnie is so well spoken because, as a Mitchell, she should be walking around with her hands dragging along the gutter pavement (ie: in ape-like fashion), rather than sounding like someone who just got out of an east-end drama school. And I would love for them to have an East Anglia character! ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 02:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do actually have a source somewhere that talks about accents when analysing the actors during an ep - unforuntately, it is just looking at that episode, rather than comparing it to the way the accents have changed. (I cam across it when doing Chrissie Watts research, as they were talking about how there are some very good actors on EE (eg: Tracy-Ann Oberman) who can go forward, but others that were really bad; then they really laid into the actress who plays Honey Mitchell and the Billy Mitchell character. (it was an early 2006 source). ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 02:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A round square?

[edit]

The Eastenders title sequence has recently been updated (I don't know how recently, as I don't watch regularly) does that make the currently displayed title card obsolete? Also, the aerial view now used shows that the "Albert Square" should perhaps have been more acurately named "Albert Circus". I'm SURE that it appeared square previously - can anybody confirm this, and when it changed? regards, Lynbarn (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to a BBC One Identity clip where the square is turned into a circle, echoing the other ID clips BBC1 uses with circles (for the 'O' in 'One'). Although sometimes played before it is shown, it is not part of the Eastenders titles. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! okay - that makes sense - and doesn't need to be mentioned in this article then. Thanks for clearing that up for me. At least I wasn't just imagining things! Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ident is actually known as Albert Circle, and was created for the 25th anniversary. AnemoneProjectors 12:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion on how a marriage ends

[edit]

I think that we should put how each of the marriages of the characters end rather than just simply give the year it ends in. That way people will know if they are widowed or divorced. 216.19.123.11 (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding yet more in-universe information to the infoboxes isn't really ideal. The end of marriages should be detailed in the "Storyline" sections of the character articles anyway. Frickative 20:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, adding stuff like "divorced", etc, adds more in-universe information than is necessary and clutters up the infoboxes. AnemoneProjectors 20:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of death

[edit]

What about at least adding causes of death? Would that be able to work or would it just clutter up the infobox more? Because they do have a field for that. Arjoccolenty (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put the cause of death field in because other soaps used it when the templates were merged. EastEnders articles have never used it because it's always mentioned in the article and just clutters up the infobox with even more in-universe information. AnemoneProjectors 13:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the main {{Infobox character}} template had the cause/reason parameter removed in September for being in-universe. The relevant discussion is here. Frickative 13:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See, I think it's wrong-ish to add fields that were removed from other templates by consensus. Apart from date of birth/death of course :-) AnemoneProjectors 15:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally dont think it's needed.GunGagdinMoan 16:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episode count and Comic Relief

[edit]

ARGH! The Comic Relief episode is episode number 4179A (following episode 4179 on Thursday, Monday's is 4180), so when we come to update the edit count, do we count it as an episode or not? It's on BBC Programmes as an episode but as far as I can see that's only because it's being broadcast on BBC Three on Sunday. If we count it, then the episode count won't match the reference. –AnemoneProjectors– 18:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IS it following a separate storyline? Sounds like they are just adding an extended bit on to A 40 minute episodes and then chopping it off, like it's split in two parts, so not really an episode imo.GunGagdinMoan 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the current Whitney storyline. It's complicated. I don't want to count it as it would make the episide count unverifiable, but I do want to place it in the list of episodes being worked on, but with the A at the end of the number that's not a problem. –AnemoneProjectors– 01:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism?

[edit]

Never seen the show, so I can't tell, but a sentence in the introductory paragraph seems like possible vandalism. The one with a young boy Lou appearing as an extra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.63.141 (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - Removed Stephenb (Talk) 06:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BBC HD 2008 - 2010

[edit]

I can't find any record that Eastenders aired on BBC HD from 2008 - 2010 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006m86d/episodes/2008 Sfxprefects (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they announced it every time it was on BBC One, although it wasn't filmed in HD at that time so wouldn't make that much sense. They only started listing BBC One HD on BBC Programmes when that channel existed and never listed BBC HD before. Why would we have listed BBC HD for all this time? –AnemoneProjectors– 13:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watch

[edit]

Can someone tell me when Watch will show repeats of Eastenders.--Sheep 2009 (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a TV guide, sorry. AnemoneProjectors 20:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find a TV guide with the repeats of EastEnders yet. So, I guess there should be repeats in the UK on Saturdays and Sundays. Let's try to keep commments to the article. 68.224.119.202 (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Home Media

[edit]

I can seem to find a section with the VHS/DVD release i known they haven't released whole series but i think it is still worth having a table. I would be happy to make one for you Thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a VHS/DVD section i hope you approve. thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this because there is an article for it all already. EastEnders spin-offs. It is linked from this article now. –AnemoneProjectors– 14:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Episode count again!!!

[edit]

We now have a problem referencing the episode count since Holy Soap has been taken down, which accurately numbered the episodes for us. This also affects the lists of episodes articles that Frickative and I have been working on. Any ideas what we can do about that? I'm wondering if the hour-long episode the other day may actually count as two episode numbers stuck together, like many hour-long episodes do. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that tvtv.co.uk matches what we have but can we reference that? Can we use it to look back on like we could Holy Soap? –AnemoneProjectors– 13:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This still hasn't been resolved. Anyone know what we could do? We can't go back on tvtv, like we could with Holy Soap, so that's not really any good as a reference... –AnemoneProjectors– 14:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images in this article

[edit]

I have recently added cast photos of EastEnders. I wonder if there are one too many non-free images in this article, such as the rape scene, the assault scene, the divorce papers scene, and the 'original' three elderly women of EastEnders. Cast photos should help more than others think, do they? --George Ho (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are probably too many. The cast images are pretty good. I guess that's all I have to say on the matter... –AnemoneProjectors– 14:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So remove these screenshots and film stills of scenes except one or a few, such as image of three women? --George Ho (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, I love the elderly lady picture, and it would be silly to lose the divorce paper scene as it is such a prominent scene from EastEnders. So im going to say delete to the rape scene or Denise scene? MayhemMario 18:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
George Ho, what is your obsession with removing images from EastEnders articles? At this rate, by this time next year there won't be any images at all! GSorby – Ping 18:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not removing one image from Wikipedia; just from either EastEnders article or characters article for each. Does divorce scene fit in soap opera article? --George Ho (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, im not really getting where your coming from. The divorce picture is already in the sopa opera article, and has a rightful place in it, is that what you wanted? MayhemMario 19:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no.... I must rephrase: well, divorce picture fits in EE-related articles; unsure about its inclusion in soap opera one. Not sure about other pictures. The Owen/Denise assault scene is no longer present in Owen Turner and Denise Fox; still unsure. --George Ho (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) On the other hand, I love to keep "three elderly women" scene. The rape scene... may be already present in character articles, so unsure about that one for this article. The assault scene should have been present in character article, unless there are good reasons to remove it from them. Pauline's death scene... unsure at first, but I removed it because there has been no rationale, and I have not added or removed the rationale (i.e. I have nothing to do with the image page). Divorce scene... don't know, but can I remove it from soap opera article and leave it in EE-related articles? --George Ho (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had enough of this user, he's pissing me off. Goodbye WP:EE. GSorby – Ping 21:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GS, please don't take it out on the project just because you don't like one user. George Ho is trying to improve the articles and to make sure our images conform to Wikipedia's policies, so it's a good thing. Personally I think Kathy's rape and Denise's assault pictures could go, but the divorce papers scene is good because it was the highest rated episode and is quite iconic. I also like the three old ladies picture because it shows a typical type of character, but isn't necessarily needed to show what three old ladies look like. –AnemoneProjectors– 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking it out on the project, it's just that George Ho insists that he's always right and complains that "we treat images as pictures of fictional characters" or something like that. I'm steering well clear of him. GSorby – Ping 14:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, it's just that you said goodbye to WP:EE and I don't want to lose you. I think we're right to treat them as pictures of fictional characters, as that's what they are, though the characters are portrayed by real people. But he's certainly wrong to want these images just so he can identify the characters in his head. He's done some good work at least. But nobody's perfect, right? –AnemoneProjectors– 15:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know, over-reaction is my middle name! I just can't stress enough to George Ho how important it is to discuss things first (referring to the revamp of the lists). GSorby – Ping 15:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was annoying yes but he says he didn't realise it was chronological at the time. But yeah, discussion first does help! It's why we have WP:EE! –AnemoneProjectors– 15:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel sorry for George (Ho), as deleting articles and images is not the "nicest" thing to do, and probably gives you a lot of enemies. :/. However, it is annoying how images are being deleted, but at the end of the day I guess it is rather neccesary. If the image does not have a good rationale, it teaches us. At the end of the day, we can just re-upload it if we think it fits in. MayhemMario 16:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enough about me (good or bad)! Since there is no consensus to decide what scene images to deliberately remove, maybe I could use {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} on whichever scenes you could permit me to tag. In fact, I could leave the "divorce" papers scene alone, and then I could tag the assault scene as dubious to use. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders parody

[edit]

In 2003, the New Musical Express made up a parody if you will of EastEnders by dubbing it, EastSiders. Could this be added to the article after any reference or hard evidence of this being found and complying with Wikipedia policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 (talk)

With a reliable source, it can be added to EastEnders in popular culture, if it's not already mentioned there. –AnemoneProjectors– 09:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BBC HD

[edit]

Hi, I was wonder if anyone else noticed there is nothing about BBC HD in the EastEnders article because from December 2010 - March 2011 EastEnders had a simulcast cast with BBC Three (EastEnders 10PM Repeat). Link any thought Kelvin 101 (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox edit warring

[edit]

PLEASE STOP!!! Has nobody heard of WP:BRD or WP:3RR? We are supposed to discuss this instead of constantly reverting each other. So let's discuss each point, one by one. (And yes I know I'm just as guilty, but the number of reverts in the last 24 hours shows it's got out of hand)

  1. Small text. Should not be small because small text is not helpful for the visually impaired. We should refrain from using small text anywhere, but especially in the infobox, which already uses a smaller font than normal.
  2. BBC Two as an original broadcaster. This is true, as they occasionally show the original broadcast when it is not on BBC One due to sports broadcasts. However, maybe it's so infrequent that we don't need to include it.
  3. BBC Three as an original broadcaster. This is not true, because they show repeats, not original broadcasts.
  4. "1985–1999" vs "1985–99". Should be the latter to be consistent with all EastEnders articles. See WP:YEAR and WP:EE/MOS.
  5. The age of the programme. The programme is not a person and does not have an age. We do not need to include this.
  6. EastEnders Xtra as a related show. Yes it is, but it's probably not that notable and to include it would mean including other spin-offs and documentaries which are just as non-notable. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
  7. Have I missed any?

Thoughts? Comments? Discussion? –AnemoneProjectors– 08:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say much here. I have never seen the show and probably never will. My (unwarranted) revert and report were inspired by user MatthewChown's (—See Special:Contributions/MatthewChown—) edit warring and persistent refusal to provide edit summaries, use talk pages, or interact in any way with other contributors. To solve this particular case I should of course have filed a 3RR edit warring report instead. My apologies for that. - DVdm (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input anyway. I just wanted to invite everyone involved. –AnemoneProjectors– 09:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know what #7 is now. It's the episode durations. 35-60 is fairly common, but the 6- and 10-minute episodes were one offs (for Children in Need), as was the 70-minute episode (Pat's death, I think). I've kept them in because they happened, and would like to know people's opinions on keeping them in. The edit war-ers of the above never replied, but feel free to comment on those too. –AnemoneProjectors– 17:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders ending

[edit]

Don't be surprised if our vandals try to use this source to say that EastEnders is ending. It's not, so revert on sight. Or perhaps we need protection, because it's been quite persistent... –AnemoneProjectors– 11:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals are always trying to claim it's ending, but never with a citation!! :) I do a lot of anti-vandal patrolling, so I'll be on watchout anyway... Stephenb (Talk) 12:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Doof-doof moment"

[edit]

Has this phrase now passed into common parlance for cliffhanger? [5], [6], [7] etc etc? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, especially in relation to EastEnders, though it would be interesting to see if it's used for non-EastEnders cliffhangers. Sometimes it's spelt "duff duff". –AnemoneProjectors– 11:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring - Contents of table

[edit]

Wikipedia is known for it's prose, not a collection of tables. The following has been removed from the article, can we get someone to clean this up into better prose? I'm doing this to avert an edit war. And it's probably good for both editors involved to review WP:3RR and WP:WHENTABLE Timmccloud (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest serving cast members (Top 25)

[edit]
Top 25 (as of August 2013)
No. Actor Character Duration (total)
1 Adam Woodyatt Ian Beale 1985–present (28 years)
2 Pam St. Clement Pat Evans 1986–2012 (26 years)
3 June Brown Dot Cotton 1985–1993, 1997–present (24 years)
4 Steve McFadden Phil Mitchell 1990–2003, 2005–present (21 years)
5 Wendy Richard Pauline Fowler 1985–2006 (21 years)
6 Sid Owen Ricky Butcher 1988–2000, 2002–2004, 2008–2012 (18 years)
7 Barbara Windsor Peggy Mitchell 1994-2010 (16 years)
8 Letitia Dean Sharon Watts 1985–1995, 2001–2006, 2012–present (16 years)
9 Natalie Cassidy Sonia Fowler 1993-2007, 2010, 2011 (16 years)
10 Gillian Taylforth Kathy Beale 1985–2000 (15 years)
11 Mike Reid Frank Butcher 1987–2000, 2002–2003, 2005 (15 years)
12 Perry Fenwick Billy Mitchell 1998–present (15 years)
13 Leonard Fenton Harold Legg 1985-1997, 2000, 2004, 2007 (15 years)
14 Gretchen Franklin Ethel Skinner 1985–1997, 2000 (13 years)
15 Todd Carty Mark Fowler 1990–2003 (13 years)
16 John Bardon Jim Branning 1996, 1999–2011 (13 years)
17 Patsy Palmer Bianca Butcher 1993–1999, 2002, 2008–present (12 years)
18 Rudolph Walker Patrick Trueman 2001–present (12 years)
19 Jon Peyton Price Martin Fowler 1985–1997 (12 years)
20 Dean Gaffney Robbie Jackson 1993-2003, 2004, 2010 (12 years)
21 Ross Kemp Grant Mitchell 1990-1999, 2005, 2006 (11 years)
22 Bill Treacher Arthur Fowler 1985-1996 (11 years)
23 Derek Martin Charlie Slater 2000–2011 (11 years)
24 Susan Tully Michelle Fowler 1985-1995 (10 years)
25 Charlie Brooks Janine Butcher 1999-2004, 2008-present (10 years)
I know that it is uncommon practice but the last list was all cramped together and was essentially very long winded and hard to read. The table presents more information in a much clearer format. Emmerdale use a very similar list for their long serving characters, and though it is a different soap, it presents its characters much better rather than the squashed prose we had before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.186.50 (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant you the prose was poor, but we do try to limit lists/tables in favor of well written prose. Tell you what - reference and source your table above and we may have consensus for inclusion. Where did you get your information? Please tell me it wasn't WP:OR. Timmccloud (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the prose is poor, but it should probably be cut down considerably and references should be added. The table looks worse than prose does and looks very out of place in the article, so I would much prefer to keep the prose in favour of a table. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also wanted to note that three editors removed the table, which tends towards consensus for its removal. –AnemoneProjectors– 14:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was already a table present when I edited it and I just adjusted it to add other characters. I can find sources however for each character to prove longevity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.186.7 (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these figures seem dubious, or at least miselading. Leonard Fenton stopped being a regular cast member in 1997, he only appeared in occasional epsisodes from then... yet he is listed as 13 on this list??? Surely if this kind of thing should be measured at all it should be the total number of episodes a character has appeared in... - Bleaney (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The original creator of the list counted which years they appeared in and added as total. I agree, I found it a bit odd. Dr Legg only appeared once in 2007 but it counts as a year. But going by that logic, he would actually be around that position
If this table was to be included, it should be based on the number of days someone was a cast member, because someone appearing for a short time in one year isn't a year of being in the cast. But I still say we don't need or want it. –AnemoneProjectors– 18:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I can find total number of episodes around, shall I see what I can find?
IMDb's not a reliable source, if that's what you're going to use. But I think it's better as it is now, with a short paragraph about long-running characters, mentioning just two of them. I really don't think we need anything more than that. –AnemoneProjectors– 08:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AP, no need for this. Bleaney (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the source for this information? The very fact that there is a debate over how the figures have been created indicates it is original research, or at the very least synthesis. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Audio

[edit]

Hi, Does anyone know if Eastenders audio is Dolby Digital 2.0?

Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea. I did a quick Google search but found no answers. I don't expect any of the regular editors or readers here will know either, but you never know. It would probably be in the article if they did. –AnemoneProjectors– 17:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intro makes no sense

[edit]

"EastEnders is a British television soap opera, first in the United Kingdom on BBC One on 19 February 1985", aren't we missing the word 'aired' or 'broadcast' somewhere in there? 176.251.28.104 (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. An anonymous editor removed the word "broadcast" (and also "to pinpoint the location using" from the sentence "Fans have tried to pinpoint the location using this postcode") on 16 November. These edits were missed, possibly because almost immediately after, the page was vandalised by another user, and when this was reverted, the page history wasn't checked. –AnemoneProjectors– 22:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omnibus edition

[edit]

I am attempting to edit the article to reflect the latest timing of the Omnibus edition of 'EastEnders'. On January 3rd, the continuity announcer said before the programme that the Omnibus edition would henceforth be broadcast on Friday evenings, following 'The Graham Norton Show'.Philip Dunn (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:EastEnders/Archive_2&oldid=1264336157"