Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Family list

So, I did think it might be nice if we had a page listing the EE families (in a manner of a character list); I also thought a brief introduction (1 maybe 2 paragraphs) long can expand upon the importance of family to EE. I feel this to be an important issue (and have 1 or 2 references to help establish notability - but would appreciate any more!!!!) I have begun the page in my userspace: User:Junipers_Liege/EastEnders_families. I envisage a brief summary of each family in the manner of the List of EE character pages, and redirects to those that have main articles. What do you think? I know, AP, you are somewhat hesitant about matters concerning EE families, but I think this is a valid activity, and would be a good place to describe the importance of "family" in EE. Feel free edit. Any takers for doing summaries for particular families... presently I just copied the introductions from family pages for those that have them. ??? What about the categorisation of Major/Minor??? Again, feel free to edit. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 07:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a valid (albeit potentially difficult!) topic for an article. I'm sure there must be some good, indepth sources discussing the importance of family, seeing as it's so integral to the show, and in fact I just did a quick Google book search and it seemed to bring up a lot of good, usable material. One thing I'd say is that, unless you have a source stating that the Beale, Branning, Mitchell, Slater and Watts families are the "core" family units, categorising them as major/minor is probably going to be inherently POV. I'd quite like to have a go at tackling the Slater family summary if that's okay :) Frickative 08:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome to do the Slater - edit away... I agree above the Major/Minor; I did it to at the start when I was coming to grips with "sub" families and how to list them (ie: Fowlers, Jacksons), but now I just think it is better to list all the families, sub-included, in one homogeneous list. If you look in my userspace you'll see I have another page that was just basically me outlining families and character connections (it's here - feel free to add points/issues - it's sort of like a discussion about how to generally "approach" the way the EE families are grouped/classified on Wiki). As I did that I have come to the conclusion that, for instance, the Jacksons should definately be considered an independent family from the Brannings - and I've also come to the same conclusion about the Fowlers in certain respects. So I will modify the page to just list all families; I just realised I forgot the Butchers! ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 08:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is a ...... great idea! It's much much better than the List of families in EastEnders that we used to have which was just a list of families and its members and had no sources, ended up here >>> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of families in EastEnders. I mostly like this because it cuts down on the number of family articles that will be created ;) But... I wanna do the Masoods! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

lol - I am glad AP. You are welcome to the Masoods. I will take up the di Marcos first I think. I agree that it will now remove the need for individual pages for most families. Personally, I only believe that the Slaters warrant their own article (because I think there is quite a bit of information about them and all the fuss when they were introduced), but otherwise I do not see the need for any more family articles. The one I did on the Watts I will rework sometime soon (it was my first article); orientate it more towards the information about the second generation (and how they related to the first), which was my original intention. The other good thing is that it will enable us to properly fill in all the family fields for the characters now. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 12:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, just read Frickative's great Slater summation..... VERY lucky that Lacey Turner did not become a Miller instead of a Slater!!! How history my have changed! ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 12:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Do families that have main pages require entries? I am inclined to think that it would be good to have a brief account (so as to have all the "history" of the families on one page), but if so it should be very truncated and brief. But I am not committed to this view. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 13:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a brief intro is a good idea, which is basically the plan for the lists of characters by year, but it hasn't happened yet (other than for Adam Best). We can create redirects for all the families when this eventually goes live :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

To do list

I'm sure nobody cares that much but I finally figured out something I've been trying to do for a long time. I changed the layout of the to do list and got it included in the {{EastEnders project class}} template so it will appear on every talk page for EastEnders pages. Now all we have to do is maintain the to do list! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I care.... good move. The Project can only give guidance (can't order priorities), but I'm sure it will probably end up getting a few people (non members) attention. I was looking at the page view stats for EE pages yesterday.... alot of pages gets tens of thousands of views each month; even pages of long past characters like Den and Chrissie get 1000s of views a month. I wonder why this doesn't translate into more members? I was looking at the DW project at around the same time.... I don't monitor it regularly so have no way of knowing how active their membership list is; but they have a lot of members and seem to be more active. I wonder what their page stats are like. It's odd.... because EE and DW are the BBC's top ratings programme, and whilst EE obviously does not have a cult following, it nonetheless attracts an avid fanbase (one only has to look at the posts on DS for evidence of that!). I suppose, the difference may be that the DW fanbase has (ironically given the show's misperception as a children's show) an older fanbase, whilst EE, or the fanbase, is perhaps younger orientated (lots of teens) - again, the DS forums provide ample evidence that most vocal EE fans are hormonal teenagers. Given that Wiki articles, whilst not academic, are required to meet standards that are probably just below the academic level, it probably puts alot of these fans off - which is probably not a bad thing, really. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 01:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that they're put off because academics don't want to be involved with something below the academic level? I think my changes might bring in more members, but sometimes I think that's a bad thing. Most new members we get either give up really quickly or make pretty poor edits. We should be allowed to vote members off :P AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the opposite.... that because we require more than just gossip and "fanwank" it puts a certain kind of fan off, and probably make poor edits. Which is, as I said, it is probably a good thing. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 02:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what I hoped you meant, cos it's certainly true. I got a D in English GCSE by the way lol AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, to judge by your articles I wouldn't have thought that - I assume you must have been distracted at the time.... probably some hot totty about? Does it for me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 02:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Main Page. Now. Go!

We did it! (RIP Wendy) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Very nice. Is this the second time for an EE page to be features on the main page??? ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 08:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we had Adam Best (EastEnders) and EastEnders: E20 on the main page for DYK, then EastEnders for "on this day" on its anniversary, and now this. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Character infoboxes

You might have noticed some changes to the character infoboxes. Firstly, the font has been made smaller. I think this is much improved. Secondly, I asked the person who did that if they could make the "family" drop down optional, and this has been done, so now there is only a need for one template and the others have been redirected. That means only {{Infobox EastEnders character 2}} needs to be used. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Good that we only need one infobox now, but was the font change really neccessary? Alex250P (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The font size you mean? Well, it was just changed by another user, because that's the size infoboxes use. I prefer it, and it takes up less space on the page. _{anemoneprojectors│talk} 12:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Dot's single-hander

It now has an article - Pretty Baby..... I was going through the archives here and saw that I wanted the article in 2008 after it was broadcast and Frickative wanted it in April 2008 but nobody did it! So there you go. Some of those old discussions are quite interesting, especially from my year off. anemoneprojectors talk 19:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Biography page

Slightly off topic.... just doing the page on Tracy-Ann Oberman, as I have all the material from sourcing the Chrissie Watts article (and just wanted to get it done so I can get rid of all these links and references I've bookmarked). I know that the infobox pic on bio pages has to be a free-image, does that also apply to images on the article body? In otherwords, is it possible to provide a screencap from EE on the page or is that considered a no-no? Also, I recall a page somewhere where you can ask for an image to be found/taken - thought I'd ask for one for Oberman; not likely, but hey. Once I finish this I'll go back to the families page and do the intro and then the EE ratings section on the EE main page. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 22:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm it's probably not a good idea to add fair use images that way - you'd have to have an incredibly strong rationale for it. anemoneprojectors talk 22:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't think so, just wanted to double check. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 23:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

List of EastEnders characters (2010)

What do people think of my plan to only give separate sections to characters with OOU information, and to include all others in "others"? I think it might have good potential for GA status (or would it be FL since it's a list?). Not sure how long Kylie and Connor are going to be around for though, so their entry in the "others" could become quite large - we'd have to keep an eye on it. anemoneprojectors talk 12:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I love the new idea and look and think it's really helpful and informative, however I think some the of the 'Others' could have sections of their own, say if they appeared for more than a month? As some people are going to get long sections. Alex250P (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to keep it OOU as far as possible... the "Others" section is getting very long already, though, and it's only March. Honestly, I haven no idea how it would be received in a GA or FL review, but personally I've never really thought that background characters like "Two women Phil and Minty flirt with" or "A doctor who talks to Pat" are notable enough to even require listing. I think it would have to be FL as it's a list, which is a shame... I nominated something there for the first time this month, only to have it fail because no one actually bothered to review it, so I'm a bit jaded with that whole process tbh =/ Frickative 18:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I kmow it's not a valid argument but I like the others, probably because I'm basically maintaining it. If we were going to trim it down, it would be the single-episode characters who were removed, but you never know when a character will return, for example, a character who appeared for one episode in 2008 is returning next week. It's nice to be able to know that. If, for example, we removed Dr Clayton and she reappeared later this year, or next year, or in three years, we wouldn't know and might re-add her to another list in the wrong place. EastEnders is quite good at bringing one-off characters back where it makes sense to do so (police, doctors, etc). I'm hoping that when Kylie and Connor return it's not for long because I don't want their others section to get too long and I don't really want them to be separated without any OOU stuff. Then again, even a bit of reception would be good and there's a possibility there will be some for them two. anemoneprojectors talk 18:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks good to me; I like the idea of an "Others" section. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 23:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think it doesn't really matter if a glorified extra re-appears half a dozen times, they're still almost never notable. I don't edit the lists much so I'm not saying omg remove them all right now (!), I just think it will likely be an issue if you try for GA/FL in future. Frickative 23:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I might not bother with GA/FL then. But hopefully at some point in the future some of the characters will get separate articles and they will be GA :) anemoneprojectors talk 23:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I could be totally wrong - at least they're definitely broad in coverage! I don't mean to be a Negative Nancy, and what I meant but forgot to say at the beginning is that List of EastEnders characters (2010) is actually really fab, and you do great work keeping it so well maintained/referenced :) Frickative 00:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wanted to make sure that even the "others" are referenced, even if it's just the actor credit. I've tried to expand the lead as well because none of the character lists have lead sections. anemoneprojectors talk 01:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

EE cliffhangers

I found this list of those who have apparently received the greatest number of EE Duff duff moments since EE began, as aired Jan to Feb 2010 on BBC3 on EE's greatest cliffhangers. Just putting here in case anyone wants to add it to any character articles

100 - Clyde Taveriner - 11
99 - Kate Mitchell - 11
98 - Lucas Johnson - 11
97 - Robbie Jackson - 12
96 - Ben Mitchell - 12
95 - Honey Mitchell - 12
94 - Diane Butcher - 12
93 - Jane Beale - 13
92 - Lynne Hobbs - 13
91 - Lucy Beale - 13
90 - Ali Osman - 13
89 - Shirley Carter - 13
88 - Mary Smith- 13
87 - Heather Trott - 13
86 - Andy Hunter - 13
85 - Dan Sullivan - 13
84 - Patrick Trueman - 13
83 - Vicky Fowler - 13 or 14 (site doesn't say)
82 - Alan Jackson - 14
81 - Irene Hills - 14
80 - Ethel Skinner - 15
79 - Sarah Hills - 15
78 - Steve Elliot - 15
77 - Anthony Trueman - 15
76 - Ruby Allen - 15
75 - Ruth Fowler - 16
74 - Terry Raymond - 17
73 - Paul Trueman - 17
72 - Tony Hills - 17
71 - Gita Kapoor - 18
70 - Dawn Swann - 18
69 - Roxy Mitchell - 18
68 - Charlie Slater - 19
67 - Sanjay Kapoor - 19
66 - Beppe Di Marco - 19
65 - Whitney Dean - 19
64 - Mandy Salter - 19
63 - Dr May Wright - 19
62 - Minty Peterson - 20
61 - Sue Osman - 20
60 - Lofty - 20
59 - Barry Evans - 21
58 - Denise Fox - 21
57 - Jack Branning - 21
56 - Laura Beale - 22
55 - Kevin Wicks - 22
54 - Matthew Rose - 23
53 - Jim Branning - 24
52 - Natalie Evans - 24
51 - Steven Beale - 24
50 - Jamie Mitchell - 25
49 - Archie Mitchell - 26
48 - Johnny Allen - 26
47 - Roy Evans - 27
46 - Garry Hobbs - 29
45 - Tanya Branning - 30
44 - Nick Cotton - 30
43 - Chrissie Watts - 30
42 - Nigel Bates - 31
41 - Tiffany Mitchell - 31
40 - Bradley Branning - 31
39 - Sean Slater - 31
38 - Carol Jackson - 33
37 - Sam Mitchell - 34
36 - Dennis Rickman - 36
35 - Ronnie Mitchell - 39
34 - Lisa Fowler - 40
33 - Simon Wicks - 40
32 - Zoe Slater - 42
31 - Melanie Owen - 43
30 - Janine Butcher - 44
29 - Steve Owen - 44
28 - David Wicks - 44
27 - Angie Watts - 44
26 - Max Branning - 47
25 - Martin Fowler - 50
24 - Ricky Butcher - 51
23 - Pete Beale - 51
22 - Cindy Beale - 53
21 - Little Mo - 54
20 - Kat Moon - 57
19 - Stacey Slater - 58
18 - Alfie Moon - 64
17 - Sonia Fowler- 65
16 - Bianca Jackson - 66
15 - Billy Mitchell - 68
14 - Arthur Fowler - 72
13 - Frank Butcher - 73
12 - Peggy Mitchell - 82
11 - Dot Branning - 101
10 - Kathy Mitchell - 101
09 - Den Watts - 103
08 - Mark Fowler - 106
07 - Michelle Fowler - 112
06 - Pat Evans - 121
05 - Pauline Fowler - 122
04 - Grant Mitchell - 131
03 - Sharon Rickman - 138
02 - Ian Beale - 141
01 - Phil Mitchell - 206

GunGagdin^Moan 22:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the list as I watched the episodes but I somehow ended up with 101 characters. I'm not sure these are worth mentioning, as we would have to explain the significance of the "duff duff" in each article, and it's not explained in any article right now. I don't even think it's worth mentioning that Zoe Slater had the most consecutive cliffhangers with 6. anemoneprojectors talk 22:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

James William Branning

Just wanted to make a note that Carol talked about her great grandfather James William Branning in tonight's episode, however, I think we should leave him out of infoboxes as he was long dead before the series started and is of no importance to any storylines, but we can expect someone to be going around adding him to every Branning and Jackson article going. anemoneprojectors talk 18:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I did, however, add him to Branning family. anemoneprojectors talk 18:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And as predicted, it happened. I did revert, and I see Gungadin has done the same, so at least I know somebody agrees! If we get around to cutting down the infobox family members, he would get removed anyway. anemoneprojectors talk 19:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are the family members in the infobox being cut down?Alex250P (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Because there are too many, and such distant relatives are pretty irrelevant. {{Infobox soap character}} doesn't use them so there's no reason for {{Infobox soap character 2}} to use them. anemoneprojectors talk 23:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

10 GAs

A milestone for WikiProject EastEnders! Well done everyone :) anemoneprojectors talk 19:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox EastEnders character 2 has been nominated for deletion.

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 9#Template:Infobox EastEnders character 2. anemoneprojectors talk 15:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind a rather dense question, but what does the EastEnders template do that the {{Infobox character}} and {{Infobox soap character}} templates don't do? I know there are more family fields, but those can be replicated with the extra parameters in {{Infobox character}}, so other than that? Frickative 15:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, {{Infobox character}} doesn't have additional images or hidden family sections and would be inappropriate. Using {{Infobox soap character}} would cause us no end of problems since it contains fields that this project have rejected (romances and cause/death cause, not sure of others). Other than that, we want to keep the blue colour (oh, I see colour can be specified), and we don't want "family" and "profile" to display if the fields below them aren't used (look at articles using the soap character infobox who don't have family members and you'll see what I mean). We also don't use nickname, alias, gender, or title. Introducer is missing, as is breed and owner for pets. I wouldn't mind it so much if a new {{Infobox soap character 2}} was created, based on the EastEnders one, as I'm sure Neighbours, Home and Away, Coronation Street, Emmerdale and Hollyoaks editors would all support its use as well, seeing as it's the British (and Australian-shown-in-the-UK) soaps that have tried to create their own templates in the past, based on the EastEnders one. anemoneprojectors talk 16:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm, well, the additional images could be included in the body of the article, which admittedly isn't as neat, but then including them in the infobox makes it massive, especially when there are 2 additional images. The family/profile/information whatever header can be hidden using {{Infobox character}} so it doesn't display for characters that have none. I'm sure people would try to include parameters we've rejected, but (and I could be wrong!) I don't think it would add that much extra work to the regular vandalism patrol we already do. And the introducer, breed and owner parameters can also be replicated with the extra fields in {{Infobox character}}. I don't think that's the case with the soap opera variant, but I've never actually used that one because it's quite ugly. Which is a terrible reason, lol, but neither here nor there. Frickative 16:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We would have LOADS of extra work to do since we have separated the parents, children, siblings, aunts/uncles, etc, into male and female. There are over 300 uses of our template, and quite frankly, the time it'll take could be put to much better use, improving our articles. I don't think {{Infobox character}} has enough optional fields, does it? And the family still isn't "drop down". {{Infobox soap character}} could be improved, and the extra fields could be added but we'd probably have to beg really hard for them at WikiProject Soap Operas (and probably fail). anemoneprojectors talk 16:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see, I didn't even think about them being separated by sex. I suppose AWB isn't advanced enough to find 'mother' and father' and substitute in 'parents' etc? That would take faaaar too long to change manually, agreed. Not so much on the not enough optional parameters, though. I've said for as long as I've been part of the project that all these great great grandparents etc are excessive, but I know it's not consensus here so I don't push it :) Frickative 16:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was going to bring up the very distant relatives thing at some point. I was going to propose that we only keep the most relevant or closest relatives, and remove names that never appeared or have no article/list section (unless it's important like Bianca and Ricky's daughter Natasha). I thought we could reduce the amount of names in the infobox, then see what fields weren't used and remove them. And I was also going to propose that the upcoming EastEnders families page includes lists of family members like the ones we have currently at Branning family or Mitchell family so a link can be provided under "family" in the infobox and all the family members will be there. I don't think either of the general character templates have a "family" field that just contains a link to a family page, or do they? anemoneprojectors talk 16:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

{{Infobox character}} has a 'family' and 'relative' parameter, and I think family is supposed to be used for immediate relations and relatives for more distant ones (though the distinction has always seemed a bit pointless to me!) but I suppose there's no reason 'family' couldn't be used to link to the relevant family section. It's always a pain when these sorts of discussions and decisions are forced by deletion debates rather than being allowed to occur organically though. That said, I remember that when the Coronation Street infobox was deleted the first time around, User:Magioladitis, who has nominated the Neighbours template for deletion, did all the work in making the parameters comply with {{Infobox soap character}}, so if it comes to it, perhaps he'd be willing to similarly help here. Frickative 17:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think linking to a family article or section would be benefitial if we were to lose long distance relatives. Characters like Liam Butcher would have to have links to the Fowlers, Butchers and Brannings, but I guess that's ok. If we did lists like has been done in the Mitchell article, it would be clear how people are related. I too think it's a pain that this has been forced by deletion debate especially as it was all in my mind to make improvements. Maybe he will help, if you're willing to ask? By the way AWB could change "aunts" to "uncles/aunts" etc and then other edits could be done manually within AWB before saving (as I tried to explain to User:5 albert square recently!) but it's still a major task. anemoneprojectors talk 17:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see (I think!). I used to have AWB, but I don't have it installed on my current laptop. If it comes to it, I'll download it again to help out, and I'll ask Magioladitis about lending a hand. With any luck we'll be allowed to do it at our own pace though - from the early discussion of the Neighbours template and the strenuous objection to it, we might be lucky enough to get a non-consensus close and take our time with things. Frickative 17:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully :) Are you going to comment? anemoneprojectors talk 17:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll definitely chime in when I've worked out what exactly I want to say! I was going to ask the same question at the Neighbours WikiProject - what exactly the new template does for them that the existing two can't... but there doesn't seem to be one, which stymied that! I'll think on it some more when I've finished expanding "Pretty Baby". I'm literally 35 words away from it being a 5x expansion, so another sentence or two somewhere should hopefully do the job. Frickative 18:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I need to work out what to say as well, but I don't know how I can keep it kept. The "Neighbours Wikiproject" seems to be on User talk:5 albert square! The Neighbours template was created by someone who I don't know and was clearly copied from the EastEnders one. If they hadn't done that, we wouldn't be in this state! I guess the Neighbours editors just went along with it, and I was helping to replace the template too. I think Hollyoaks has its own too, and there's a Corrie one that isn't even in use. anemoneprojectors talk 19:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there another Coronation Street one now?! That must be the third time it's been re-created, yeesh! I can understand the argument that the EastEnders template inspires other projects to create their own - I know when I was a fairly new editor, I created a Holby City one based on it. I honestly had no idea at the time that {{Infobox character}} could be customised to do everything I needed, until the nominating editor explained. Anyway, I just wanted to note that I've left User:RL0919 a message, asking whether he might consider withdrawing his nomination for the time being to give us time to work on this properly, without the pressure of imminent deletion bearing down on us. Finger crossed, I suppose - I know I wasn't planning on devoting the next week to gnome work on template parameters! :) Frickative 19:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So annoying, the template is used and maintained so I dont see why they're interfering in this.GunGagdin ^Moan 19:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Frickative. Yeah the Corrie one has a 2 on the end which is no doubt why nobody has noticed it. But it's not being used so can probably be speedied. anemoneprojectors talk 19:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree that this is a mountain being made out of a mole-hill. Having said that, soap and fictional pages in general get a lot of flack from certain WP members and it is sometimes better to go with the flow - that is to say, pick your battles and give way on "small" issues so as to be able to fight more effectively at larger ones. The decision is whether the current infobox provides functions that the soap one does not/cannot. I tend to agree, with Frickative, that adding the extra images in the info box are only used occasionally and sometimes to no real purpose imo (do we really need a picture of Vicki at age 6?). However, there are some important exceptions like Sam Mitchell. I'd also agree that keeping the existing box in order to keep the extended relatives is not a valid reason to keep against deletion.... but we are all agreed that there are far too many familial fields. As far as I am concerned, IF the soap info box can provide everything that the EE info box does (except providing an alternative image field and certain extended relations fields) then it may be better to bite the bullet. The only critical fields imo are those in the displayed boxes and the links to family group (Brannings, Beales, etc.) and immediate/direct relations. Having said all that it would be a pain in the ass to have to change them all. At this stage I am inclined to vote keep, primarily because of the issue raised by AP (I think) about then having users filling in all sort of extraneous fields possible in the soap info box template. I'll post something tomorrow. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 20:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, time is not an issue, as stated on User talk:RL0919. I'm sure lots of people will be willing to help make the changes. Personally, I feel creating a new {{Infobox soap character 2}} template is an acceptable compromise. We may even discover that after a time, that too can be merged into the existing soap character infobox. The family fields aren't an issue with me, and I'm sure other fields like introducer, owner, etc can be added to the existing on. I may do a test shortly to see how a number of our pages will look using the soap character infobox. I don't really want the appearance to change much, as I feel we have got it looking perfect. It's just the family fields that need sorting really. As for additional images, maybe for people like Janine, the other images could be put in the article. For people recast as babies it's probably not necessary, like Liam. But for Sam it's quite important, I guess. That's why I favour the soap character infobox over the general character one. I notice that a lot of pages not even related to soaps use the soap character infobox! anemoneprojectors talk 20:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Just read your post on RL0919 talk page - agree entirely, and with the above. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 20:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me joining in this discussion too. As a couple of editors have pointed out there is no Neighbours WikiProject (there are about three editors helping to maintain and improve the articles, so I don't know if it's worth creating one), but obviously we have some of the same problems as you regarding the templates. I feel a little responsible for all of this as I wanted a new Neighbours infobox based on the EastEnders for a while, and I was very happy when I saw that one had been created. I had no idea it would come to this. I feel that the new infobox design makes the information a lot neater and shows the readers exactly how a character is related to others without the need for extra tags beside the names, ie half-sister, great grandmother, step mother, etc. They also make the images look a lot better too. I agree with Anemone that a new {{Infobox soap character 2}}, possibly based on the EastEnders one would be an acceptable compromise if the templates are deleted. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 20:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who started this (sort of), let me just say that I'm fine with the idea of a {{Infobox soap character 2}}. The main reason I nominated this template was because someone (not me) had nominated {{Infobox Neighbours character}}, and the inevitable WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument came up that because EastEnders has its own character infobox, then every UK soap should have its own, which is just a bad road to go down. Ideally, I'd love to see all soaps standardized on a single character infobox, but I'm pragmatic and realize that there might be issues with trying to go that far. But with several UK soaps using what are basically copies of the EastEnders box, it should be pretty easy to merge them into one. (And, for what it is worth, the problem of templates fragmenting into a bunch of over-specific copies is not just a problem for soap characters. We see this sort of thing all the time at WP:TFD.) --RL0919 (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, your comments are appreciated and I'm glad you're fine with the creation of a new template. I actually knew as soon as the EastEnders template got mentioned it would be listed as well, and I was dreading it! The original EastEnders character infobox has existed since 2005. There are other UK soaps with their own infoboxes but I think it might be a good idea to leave them until the current discussions reach consensus. anemoneprojectors talk 23:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the general character infobox because of the freedom of the customisable parameters, but I must say the soap one provides a much neater way of displaying all the various family members. I'm trying to work out the main differences between the soap box and the one we have. As far as I can see its:

No "introducer" parameter
No "classification" parameter
No birth and death dates
Includes nicknames, species, alias, gender and romance parameters
No "family" parameter
"Relationships" header present even when no relationship data included
Limits family to parents, siblings, spouses, children, grandchildren, grandparents, aunts and uncles, nephews and neices and first cousins
No "owner" parameter for pets

Is that about the measure of it? My thoughts are... I can't see a problem with "introducer" being added to the existing infobox. It's real-world information that's as valid as "creator", and a lot of the time a specific creator won't be known, whereas it will always be known who a show's executive producer is at any given time. It could be argued that "classification" is in-universe, because even if a character is 'past' or 'departing' as of today, you could still sit down and watch and old episode on UK Gold, and voila, they're a present character. Same rationale as the first sentence of the articles always being "So and so IS a fictional character" rather than was, I think. Birth and death were recently removed for being in-universe. Doesn't bother me particularly, though if it's a bone of contention for anyone else, it might be hard to overturn as I believe it did have the consensus of the Soap Opera WikiProject.

Wrt the parameters it includes that we don't, we can just ignore them. I know its advised not to use gender, species etc anyway for human characters when it's obvious. The "Relationships" header that remains even when there's no relationships data present is ugly, but if the "Information" header can be coded out of {{Infobox character}} when the section isn't in use, I'm sure it must be technically possible for "Relationships" to be coded out of {{Infobox soap character}}. The "family" parameter I think would definitely need to be added, and I can't imagine any argument against it. Most articles for other serials won't need it, but it's no less valid than grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc. "Owner" might be a bit more difficult to convince on because so few articles will need it. And I think the limiting of relations is reasonable, I can't see why it would need to encompass more than that, though ideally it would be possible to denote step and adopted relations separately.

Phew! I'm sure in the amount of time it's taken me to write this, there will have been a few edit conflicts, so I'm just going to un-indent :) An argument I've seen a lot of is that the current {{Infobox soap character}} better caters to US, rather than UK soaps. Is there an appropriate venue we could discuss this with editors from the other UK projects? Neighbours, Hollyoaks Coronation Street etc. Or just invite them over here to hash things out, and put together a decisive set of specifics we do and don't want? (I see from the edit conflict when I hit save, a Neighbours editor has already joined in. Welcome to the fray, User:JuneGloom07! :) Frickative 20:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow that was long. Well I agree that introducer could be added no problem, and classification might be not so appropriate. I'm pretty sure I saw somewhere that an exception had been made for soap operas regarding birth and death dates. Nicknames, alias, gender and romances we can ignore. We do use species though. We also use breed. I'm pretty sure the soap infobox will want to fix the Relationships header problem, too. It was fairly easy to do for ours, and it was only done recently for the three infoboxes to be merged into one. I'd support merging with the soap infobox if it got those problems sorted out, otherwise I'd support a new soap character 2 template. I'm sure the second one would be used by all the UK soaps. anemoneprojectors talk 21:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome Frickative. :) I've just thought of another, albeit small, reason why the new boxes are better for Neighbours. I don't know if any of the EastEnders editors have seen/had this problem before your template was created, but the Neighbours infoboxes constantly had the family relationships and romances sections changed. Editors would add extra notes next to the names, for example they would add (mother) or (father) next to a character's parents. The new boxes obviously removed the chance to do that. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Our first Infobox was created in 2005, basically when EastEnders articles first started cropping up. We didn't have a seperate family section for a long time (we'd just list the first names of the closest relatives - spouse, parents, siblings and children), and we only went gender specific a year ago, but I don't remember that ever happening. anemoneprojectors talk 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's probably something that only annoyed me, but it was pointless. It's like telling the readers "you won't be able to work out that X is Y's mum and Z is Y's dad from their names and the info in the article, so here's a note to help explain". It was the same with deceased characters, if someone was dead a little (deceased) would be next to their name. I went round and removed a lot of those, as there is either a link to that character or their death is mentioned in the article. Btw, congrats to EE for their win at the TRIC Awards. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the only parameter that is missing is the step-family parameters which I still maintain are important to include.... is it still possible? I'll be a bit miffed if we have to loose them after only just puting them in. I'll help with any of the fiddly work if needed. PS: I sympathise with you JuneGloom that is the type of thing that would really annoy me! ;) ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 22:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks likely that a new template creation will be approved, so step families won't be lost. anemoneprojectors talk 22:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, good. Thanks. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 23:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Result

Surprised to say that the results was keep. anemoneprojectors talk 20:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise the the closing admin recommended merging with a new template. Another editor created that template and starting making updates, and I've carried that task on so we are now using {{Infobox soap character 2}}. I am also replacing the Neighbours one. Is anyone here in the Coronation Street, Emmerdale or Hollyoaks projects and also wants to use the new template? anemoneprojectors talk 16:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Corrie Project is mostly dead, and I'm all for rolling the new template out across the UK soaps en-masse. I'm having a bit of a dense moment though - I have a feeling there are some incompatible parameters, but I can't work out which ones! Frickative 17:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Incompatible between what's used in Corrie and the new template? Corrie doesn't use its own template, but I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem to change parameters using AWB. anemoneprojectors talk 17:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Family members is the main difference, which will take some manual editing (can still be done in AWB). Also residence/home, easy to do. anemoneprojectors talk 17:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I know it doesn't - I think what I was thinking of is that Corrie articles list romances which wouldn't show up if the template changed. I've no objection to that at all, but others might. Frickative 17:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I added romances earlier because Neighbours uses it. anemoneprojectors talk 19:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Guess what?

Template:Infobox soap character 2 has now been nominated for deletion. anemoneprojectors talk 22:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This petty bureaucracy is beyond ridiculous. I particularly enjoy how the whole point of the first AfDs was that the original template is US-centric, yet the nominator is still forwarding the argument 'In the US, it's like this.' How lovely for them. Frickative 23:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I given what I consider to be a rather tactful response - under the circumstances. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 08:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my language, but bollocks. If we have to go to using the infobox that Corrie uses I will cringe. It's awful and terrible at conveying information, we've gotta try and fight our corner for this. Alex250P (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Closed as "keep for now", with a hope it can be merged in future. Anemone Projectors 00:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I think it's interesting to note that the original EastEnders infobox {{Infobox EastEnders character}} was created on 19 September 2005, {{Infobox soap character}} on 16 October 2007 and {{Infobox character}} on 13 May 2006! We were actually here first. Anemone Projectors 00:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Merging of several charcters

I have been looking back through some of the EE characters with their own page, and a few really dont seem to warrant their own articles. I think they should be merged into the main character lists, though I appreciate some are debatable. Here are the characters -

Li Chong (EastEnders), Bert Atkinson, Naomi Julien, Derek Harkinson, Sandra di Marco, Jackie Owen, Kim McFarlane, Louise Raymond, Teresa di Marco, Nicky di Marco, Jeff Healy (EastEnders), Mary Flaherty (EastEnders), Conor Flaherty, Susan Rose, Alex Healy (EastEnders), Huw Edwards (EastEnders), Michael Rose (EastEnders), Felix Kawalski, Nellie Ellis, Shelley Lewis, Gill Fowler, Rachel Kominski, Lloyd Tavernier, Jules Tavernier (EastEnders), Etta Tavernier, Celestine Tavernier, Guido Smith, Matthew Jackson, Duncan Boyd, Darren Roberts (EastEnders), Jan Hammond, Guizin Osman, Hannah Carpenter and Chris Smith (EastEnders).

Additionally, Although the articles for the characters Laurie Bates, Trevor Short, Marge Green and Paul Priestly look well sourced, they all in fact have the same info and sources saying the same thing about wider changes to EE at the time. For this reason, and the fact they were not involved in any major storylines leads me to think they should be merged too.

There are other character pages who have little or no sources that could be included here, but for the time being at least, I feel editors should have a chance to 'flesh out' these pages as the characters were pretty major in their day.

I dont expect everyone to agree with me about all of the above. I am not demanding anything, just want to generate some discussion. Bleaney (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As you know, I brought this up in December, but it just fizzled out. From your first list, I am only going to disagree with Naomi Julien because I think there is potential to expand it, similar to five articles I mentioned before. I'll also add Richard Cole (EastEnders), which I mentioned but you didn't. I also mentioned Juley Smith, which I think is a good candidate for merging. Of course, they can all be split if anyone wants to work on the articles. I think the best articles to merge are the shorter ones listed in Category:EastEnders articles in need of real-world perspective, as those are the ones most likely to face problems in the future if someone comes across them, but a lot of the articles in the category do have potential. I also wonder if some of them have potential to be put into family articles like Karim family. Maybe the Taverniers. An article about EastEnders families is in progress in User:Junipers Liege's userspace. anemoneprojectors talk 02:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree to add Richard Cole (EastEnders) and Juley Smith to the merge list, I also conceed that Naomi Julien could be saved. i think the di Marco and Tavernier families are prime examples of families that could have their own page. Bleaney (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to bed now but tomorrow when I get some time I'll do some merging (I'll make sure I don't get obsessed with Flickr for a fifth day in a row!). I don't think it would be harmful to even merge articles that have potential, as they can be unmerged later. But for now we can leave those ones and just do the ones we definitely agree on. anemoneprojectors talk 02:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, good idea really. Merge away. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 04:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I might start merging some more of the above if noone has any objections? Bleaney (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just about caught up with my watchlist, so I shall continue shorly. Feel free. I've been cleaning them up as I go along too, changing to present tense, etc. anemoneprojectors talk 19:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the urgency for all this merging is about! I object to Marge Green as it has its own reception section. Louise Raymond can definitely be expanded and she was part of some major plots so I object to that merger. There's some long-running characters in there like Jules and Nellie that I am not keen on the idea of merging tbh, particularly as it will mean images will be lost, but sourcing may be difficult, so I cant really complain if they are merged. Paul, Trevor and Laurie are too long to be merged to a list imo.GunGagdin ^Moan 21:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the urgency is either, but I think it's right to do the short articles with only in-universe information. I kept the OOU=yes part on the talk page of Bert Atkinson, so I'll do the same for any others. I can't see any reason to merge Laurie, Trevor, Marge and Paul as there is little chance they will ever come up at AFD, but if they do we can deal with them then. Nellie was a long-term character but there's very little text. Some of them may have potential for expansion, so I hope by merging them, they don't get forgotten about. There is a chance that someone will tag a page like they have done Grant Mitchell (EastEnders) for having too many fair use images. But I think not having our articles deleted is more important than not having our images deleted. But I do agree that there's no urgency as there have been no issues. anemoneprojectors talk 21:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, I dont think I ever said this needs to be done urgently? But then again, I dont see why we should faff around either IF we can all agree on which of the above should be merged (for now at least). Im not precious about who, but some of the articles mentioned above are paltry, and as has been said before, there is no reason why they cannot be recreated later when more info is provided. AnemoneProjectors tried to raise this issue some time ago, and has stated that the discusiion 'fizzled out'. I just dont want that to happen again. Bleaney (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should merge anything that we think is likely to have the potential to be expanded, that way we're unlikely to forget that the work needs to be done. It kind of defeats the purpose of the to-do list and the "in need of real-world information" category if we just merge them all. We know there are problems with some articles, and I think we should attempt fix the problems where we can first, i.e. expand the articles with real-world information. anemoneprojectors talk 22:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine where appropriate. To be honest I was surprised at the lack of info that some major characters had on their pages. Of course, if we can we should try to expand some articles if we know they deserve to be. But lets face it, Many of those in this list DONT warrant their own articles on Wiki. I want Wikiproject EastEnders to facilitate EE being the best covered soap on Wikipedia, but I want us to play within wikipedia rules, and not try to 'work under the radar' until were found out, which means lots of furious re-editing on the hop. We all know that as they are now, Most of those articles above could easily be ripped apart at AfD. Rather than be re-active, lets be pro-active, get our house in order, and then look at expansion where appropriate. Bleaney (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the two Flahertys can be merged into the Fowlers in Ireland page for now? and if we need to delete images from that page, I would say all can go except Maggie, Connor and Mary. Connor and Mary have room for expansion tho, particularly Mary as the actress has been quite vocal about her role in the media.

I like the idea of a di Marco page, except there is possibilities for expansion for most of them so I am undecided. A Tavernier page would also work, but Clyde and Hattie should definitely keep their own pages.GunGagdin ^Moan 14:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I tend to agree with Bleaney, here. Sadly, just because a character maybe notable within EE doesn't mean that they are notable outside EE, prime examples being Clyde and Hattie Tavernier. TBH, unless a page supports OOU references I really think we should consider whether it should remain - and I'm not too sure if the need to keep an image is a valid enough reason for a keep. I mean I am sometimes very surprised at the extent to which some pages, like Janine Butcher lack OOU references and sources. We also must face the fact that characters who were in the show before 2000 are very unlikely to receive OOU expansion. In fact, I've even found it a little difficult to get sources for someone like Kat Slater who arrived in 2000!!! When I did the Chrissie Watts page, the plethora of references I cam across led me to assume that I would find an equal abundance for other characters, but that has not really been so. Even for someone like Sharon I struggled to find credible references when I did a brief search. When I was putting together the section on the Moon family I found it near impossible to get sources for Alfie. I had, in my naievity, believed that all major characters could have pages like Chrissie's, but it seems that she is more of an exception, being a particularly dominant and high profile figure at a time when the show was undergoing particularly media scrutiny. This has led me to conclude that AP's Ferreria family page is probably the way forward for a lot of EE character pages. Certainly the di Marcos are prime candidates for such a merger, and if that means we loose a few images then I think we may have to bite the bullet. I mean, I would also be harsh here and suggest that the Evans characters (except Pat) should also all be put into a family page because, despite Barry, natalie, and Roy being in the show for years, the likelihood of find enough OOU references for each of them is pretty slim.... together, we may just be able to get enough. But I would, quite frankly, support either putting into list pages or family pages (along the lines of the Ferreria's) a very high proportion of pre-2000 characters. In fact, I would probably even support a Slater page for characters like Lynne and Belinda along with Charlie and Mo, rather than each of those characters have their own pages filled with nothing but plot. I have read over some of Trampikey's opinions and I have to disagree with him that the most important part of a page is the plot/storyline section. We need to remember that WP is an encyclopedia first and foremost, and that should frame our actions. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 01:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I strongly disagree. Each character is rated on its own merit. Clyde and Hattie certainly do have enough merit to support their own page and Hattie already has an OOU section, and it's not finished, I have more to add with more sources; there is no time limit on wikipedia.I dont agree with merging unless the character is unlikely to be more than plot summary and Natalie Evans is a huge article with 31 odd references and tons of OOU stuff, so that's definitely not a candidate for a merge. Not every character page needs 80+ references to keep its own article, and just because you havent found references doesnt mean they cant be found. I think most of us who have edited here for 5+ years know that wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost and your post seems a little patronising. If a character has no chance for expansion, then so be it, we can merge. Otherwise, there is no deadline for as and when we can expand and improve articles, because (and AP can vouch for me on this) we have been doing that slowly and surely for years with some pretty great results.GunGagdin ^Moan 01:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand your points and did not mean to sound patronising at all. Of course I recognise the efforts that you and others have put into the many articles here, and was going to include that in my comments. However, sometimes it is also good to get a fresh look at things, just because things have always been done one way does not mean they always have to. For instance, I see no reason why characters cannot be merged into lists until such time as their pages can be properly fleshed out. However, I did not mean to ruffle any feathers, I was just putting forward my own view and bringing back to the fore a point that, whilst not ignored (and I never suggested people did, which is why I said "we" because I ignore it myself sometimes) can sometimes be overlooked. But if you want it done differently that's fine, I'll take a step back. Again, I did not mean to be patronising, and apologise if it came across that way. I'll leave you all to it. :) ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 04:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we should refrain from merging these articles until after we've done extensive research to expand them. I reckon there are a lot of sources out there for the 1990s characters. Gungadin is bloody brilliant at finding sources those hard-to-find sources, and some articles are much longer than I had imagined. Junipers too though, I didn't expect Chrissie to get that long when I worked on expansion. So yeah, if people want to try to expand our stubs (Category:EastEnders stubs) and articles with no OOU info (Category:EastEnders articles in need of real-world perspective), take it one article at a time, have a go, and if you fail to find enough information, then merge it. anemoneprojectors talk 09:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Woah, some of the characters in the no-OOU category are really surprising. Cindy Beale? Little Mo? I have nothing better to do, so I'm going to pick one at random and see how much I can expand it by the end of the day as an acid test. Frickative 12:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I agree wholeheartedly with junipers liege, too many of these articles are rough, and just because 'its possible' to expand them, does not mean they shouldnt be merged now. After all, they can always be demerged. The fact is too many of our character pages on this project are an embarrasment to us as encyclopedia editors. We need action now, not just a hope of action later. Bleaney (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I fear that merging them now would mean they get completely forgotten about. If we all decided to dedicate ourselves to these articles now, we could get through them all pretty quick. For example, look how quickly three of us wrote this: User:Junipers Liege/EastEnders families. anemoneprojectors talk 18:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Juipers Leige, sorry for acting defensively, but I find the argument "this is an encyclopedia, you know!" very irritating. When you've heard it a million times from many editors who seem to have a superiority complex (I dont mean you), you begin to get bored of defending your position, especially when we're all well aware of the fact that it's an encyclopedia and we've been working extremely hard to get the articles into a decent shape for a very long time. I certainly dont mean for you to back away from the project or not give your opinion - I would hate to see that happen as I think you're a fabulous editor - but I just think what you said was not particularly well researched given the fact that various articles you included for merging already satisfy criteria for notability.

Bleany, if you really feel that too many of the EE pages are an embarrasment to us as encyclopedia editors, how exactly will it be less embarrassing for us to merge the exact same content into a list? Does the embarrassing content suddenly become less embarrassing en masse in one huge page? I dont get that reasoning.... I happen to think the EE pages are generally excellent, certainly in comparison to many other TV shows on Wiki, but I like to focus on the positives, as I think priase is a much strong motivator than criticism of others' hard work. But that's just me. There's still work to do, but that's the beauty of wikipedia.

But as Anemone has said, if you are really experiencing that much shame over the amount of EE pages that are 'rough', then perhaps you can work to improve the pages?

Anyway, I think the majority of the suggestions for merges you suggested above were agreed upon. It's clear you went through each page to assess whether they have much potential to be more than plot, and I appreciate that you didnt include the ones that you feel have potential in your list. Therefore, merging most of those you suggested seems reasonable to me; as you say, they can be de-merged if necessary at a later date.GunGagdin ^Moan 22:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, well I hope I didn't sound as if I was devaluing anyones work on here, thats not my intention. Gungadin, my point is that with the character lists, there is room collectively for all the characters of that year to pad a out a good article, but as it stands, some of the stand alones dont and cant. Thats why I prefer to merge on to a list. I also think that we should be aiming a little higher than to compare ourselves "to many other TV shows on Wiki": Most TV shows on wiki have fairly poor content and are low on sources.

Anyways, I will start to merge some of the lightweights like Li Chong etc. By the way, EE has been fantastic these past couple of weeks IMO!! Bleaney (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A few other things that need to be done as well as just straightforward merging... The section doesn't need to start "...is a fictional character from EastEnders" so that can be rewritten slightly. The character's image page will need to be updated with the new article. Also, the character will need to be removed from {{EastEnders characters}} and the talk page of the newly created redirect reassessed to redirect class. I think with the few I did I also changed the tense of the storylines from past to present, as it should be, and although it creates inconsistency through the list articles, it means less work to be done in future when we get around to cleaning them all up. If you just want to merge that's fine, and I'll catch up tomorrow, since I'm about to go to bed. anemoneprojectors talk 00:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so all of the above characters listed have now been merged with the exception of the following -

Louise Raymond, Mary Flaherty (EastEnders), Conor Flaherty, Alex Healy (EastEnders), Celestine Tavernier, Laurie Bates, Trevor Short, Marge Green and Paul Priestly

The Louise Raymond article still has no OOU info or references, but Gungadin wanted this one kept, and I agree that she was a major character in her day that probably could be easily beefed up on here... The Mary Flaherty & Connor Flaherty articles are not much better at the mo, but i'm not sure that it would be appropriate to merge them into the EastEnders episodes in Ireland article, as they were main characters in EE beyond the Ireland episodes. So perhaps should be merged into a main list?... I don't know why I listed Alex Healy and Celestine Tavernier, as their articles do have some sources and OOU info, so they deserve to stay... As for the Laurie Bates, Trevor Short, Marge Green and Paul Priestly? Well, I agree that the Marge Green article deserves a chance, but the other three articles only look better because they have repeated info in them from the Marge Green and Julie Cooper (EastEnders) articles. The info itself is now included in the History of EastEnders article, but I know people have objected, so its only fair they stay. Bleaney (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The repeated information in those articles is still relevant to the creation and introduction of those characters so there's no reason to remove it. If the characters were all related I would suggest merging them to a new article, though. There's nothing wrong with repeating relevant information. Mary and Conor are odd ones, because there are two possible places for them to go. (just typing my thought process here...) The Ireland article talks about characters that were introduced in those episodes, so it would be appropriate. If we were to expand their articles, it would probably repeat stuff from the Ireland article (yes I said repeating is ok but I also said I would merge to a new article!) But the problem is that their storylines would cover stuff unrelated to the Ireland episodes. And if OOU information about their departures could be found then that wouldn't really be appropriate for the Ireland page. So I reckon the two options are to keep and expand, allowing repeated information from the Ireland page, or merge to the list of characters article, but also allowing repeated information from the Ireland page, though a "see also" link in their sections would be appropriate. anemoneprojectors talk 12:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Trevor and Paul could be combined into one article perhaps? I'd quite like to do that because I think we could do that with several characters like Bruno and Luisa Marco, and possibly Etta and Celestine Tavernier (though perhaps a Tavernier family page would do in that instance) and Connor and Mary. It would mean making a dual infobox though, taking both characters stats into account.GunGagdin ^Moan 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I quite like the idea of double character pages, particularly in your instances above. I dont know what others think though, it's quite a radical departure from how we list charcters now, but I like it.Bleaney (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A Bruno and Luisa page has been discussed before, I think it's a good idea. Lots of American soaps have articles on "supercouples". Not sure how it would work with infoboxes. I don't think we should create a new one. Maybe we could adapt the family infobox, somehow. anemoneprojectors talk 20:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

break

We could just add two dates for first and last etc, and not put any in-universe info in the infobox and save it for the storylines section if necessary. I think that could work, shall I try it on the di Marcos?GunGagdin^Moan 21:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

i dont see why not. I dont think we can draw a parallel in this instance with the American 'Supercouples', as EE's vcersion of them would be the likes of Den & Angie / Kat & Alfie (I dont think Bruno and Luisa quite acheived that level of noteriety). But still, I think a double-character page could work well as you have described. Bleaney (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes give it a try. They're not a supercouple but would work better with a joint article! anemoneprojectors talk 22:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Done @ Bruno and Luisa di Marco. What u think? GunGagdin^Moan 22:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Like what you did with the images. Very good :) anemoneprojectors talk 22:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I like this a lot. I could see this working for Trevor and Paul as well as Etta and Celestine Tavernier and Connor and Mary. Bleaney (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Great. Trevor and Paul will be easy enough as most of their storylines were sort of linked. Connor and Mary less so, but I guess it depends on how much difference in OOU can be found. I know the actress who played Mary was very critical of her time on EE, and I dont know if putting her criticism in an article about both characters would work. Etta and Celestine would work because their storyline was basically the same. But I still cant decide whether it would make more sense to include a Tavernier family page. That way Lloyd and Kofi and possibly Jules could go into the page as well; however I think I have enough sources to give Jules his own page if I can get around to writing it. Any preferences? GunGagdin^Moan 00:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of a Tavernier page, I think all the family EE pages work well on here. You know, after me nominating Connor and Mary for merging, I kinda hope they can be rescued enough to remain standalones! I dont't know if the actress who played Mary was critical of her time on EE specifically though, looking through sources I can find, she has mentioned her depression through becoming such a big star so quickly, and I dont know if that can/should be in the article? Bleaney (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If she left because of the depression then it may be relevant to a departure section, but you're right, the actress's depression isnt that pertinent to the character page particularly if it wasn't a factor in her departure. A lot of information will be relevant from EastEnders episodes in Ireland page for both Connor and Mary, particularly the criticism. I can definitely rustle up personality sections for both based on books I have.GunGagdin ^Moan 14:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Still no movement with the "revamped" BBC EE site

I have to say I am very disappointed with the way the BBC have done this upgrade. Quite frankly the site is not even remotely as comprehensive as it was and is now just full of fluff; I don't know if there are any plans to bring back the characters pages for past figures - or for past episodes. Although the character pages can be found on archive.org, the past episodes cannot I don't think.

The official site is now really pretty poor; I find it especially odd given that the website had only recieved an upgrade sometime in 09 I think; the amount of money wasted on the new upgrade needlessly really makes me wonder at priorities. Grrrrrrr. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 08:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping they get around to it eventually, since we were promised, and they are in fact still promising to add all past characters. I don't know if old episodes will ever return though. I was expecting the finished site to be live in January, but it seems they haven't taken any suggestions into account yet. I sent several. The current site hasn't changed since it went live in December 2009. Before that, the last revamp was April 2007. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for characters but I notice that the Walford map is back up. anemoneprojectors talk 13:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of the old characters have pages now, but our links on wiki dont direct to them.GunGagdin ^Moan 18:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's good. {{EEcharlink2}} can be used. anemoneprojectors talk 18:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, since they all now need to be updated, I'll move the new template to the old one, but the pages still need to all be updated. I'll use AWB. anemoneprojectors talk 18:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Shall we just remove the template from characters who are no longer on the site? anemoneprojectors talk 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think they aren't finished completing the pages, so I would leave them for now. Plus, we can always use wayback for the ones that they dont replace (if any).GunGagdin ^Moan 19:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been skipping them so I'll carry on doing that. Should we use wayback for external links? anemoneprojectors talk 19:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) They can't be finished, there's no Carol Jackson page! anemoneprojectors talk 19:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, or David Wicks! I dont see why we cant use wayback for the links if we need to. You have reservations?GunGagdin^Moan 19:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's only meant to be used for citations. By the way, some of the articles that were recently merged to lists had their external links removed completely. anemoneprojectors talk 20:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that Fatboy, Leon and Zsa Zsa now have profiles on the EastEnders site as well as the E20 site. Can we use both or should we switch to the EastEnders one? Anemone Projectors 15:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

EastEnders: E20

It's coming back for a second series. I was kind of dreading this as it means major rewrites to the current article, as it's essentially all about series 1, though hopefully a lot of it is common ground between the two (characters aren't, but writers are). However, I've been working in my userspace on separate articles for series 1, series 1, a list of characters and a list of episodes. I wanted to ask if people thing this is a good idea, or should we just try to include information on both series in the one article, though I still think a separate list of episodes and list of characters would be helpful. If you're interested, here's what I've done so far:

I'm still working on them though, and the list of episodes won't make any sense until the articles are all in the main space - though if we did away with series specific articles I'd just move the information to there instead of transcluding it. anemoneprojectors talk 19:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now decided against the list of characters, at least for now. anemoneprojectors talk 22:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I havent seen any of this material, but I would base it on sources. If series 2 gains enough coverage, give it its own page, if not merge.GunGagdin ^Moan 00:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - though I'd say even if you don't do separate articles for series 1 and 2, a separate episode list is still a good idea, with just the basic tables transcluded into the main article - otherwise it could end up huuuuge with all the plot summaries. Frickative 00:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the list of episodes will be necessary, whatever happens. I wasn't going to transclude the basic table at all, just link to the new list, I don't see a reason for transcluding unless there's going to be separate series 1 and series 2 articles (and then it would transclude to the list of episodes). For now, I've just updated EastEnders: E20 with the new information. Hopefully it still reads ok - I don't like the way I've had to put "in series 1 [this] and in series 2 [this]" and stuff like that, as some things are definitely specific to only series 1. anemoneprojectors talk 01:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Transcluding the basic table is only going to work if there are separate series 1 and series 2 articles with the lists on different pages. I do quite like the idea of having the basic table on the main article but it's impossible to separate the two tables with a "series 2" level 3 subheading. Unless anyone knows a way to do it. I've tested it in preview. anemoneprojectors talk 12:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Been wanting to ask this for a while but I might not get the result I want now that Leon and Zsa Zsa have been axed. But since I'm planning the list of E20 characters, I was hoping to have separate pages for the four characters that appeared in both shows. My Zsa Zsa article currently has ten references, and my Leon one only has three but I haven't worked on that very much. However, it looks like Bryan Kirkwood wants to keep Fatboy and Mercy on beyond their initial contracts. I'm rather pleased with my Fatboy article, especially as it has a good reception section. My Mercy article is also underdeveloped but has 11 refs even before she's been in EastEnders (I can get rid of the episode refs). I'm sure they are all expandable, but I think other members are unlikely to agree to a separate Mercy article for some time. I just think that because they are in both EastEnders and EastEnders: E20, it would be a good idea to separate them rather than say they are EastEnders characters (basically the E20 characters list would have less information on their time in E20 than the EastEnders list - I don't see the point in lots of repetition). Thoughts? Anemone Projectors 01:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on the articles at present, I'd have no objection to Zsa Zsa, Fatboy and Mercy being moved to the mainspace. The key issue is obviously notability, and I think those three have enough references to demonstrate it. Leon is trickier, but if you think it can be expanded, then by all means. Frickative 19:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yay! I'll work on Mercy and Leon's pages a bit more, maybe wait for Mercy to join. I at least would like to separate them before the next series of E20 airs. Some of the reception is for more than one character so that's helpful. Anemone Projectors 19:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and split the four characters now. Feel free to make edits where you think necessary. I don't think I've missed anything. I'll leave the lists of characters and episodes until we know more about what's going on in series 2. Anemone Projectors 13:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

EastEnders: Christian and Syed

This documentary is on right now, I only found about it earlier but there is LOTS of information on the creation and development of all the Masoods and Christian, lots and lots that can be added to articles. LOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go watch it later if you're not watching it now! Anemone Projectors 19:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And other gay characters too. Anemone Projectors 19:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Was Madge Mitchell a real character in EastEnders?

I've been reverting additions of Madge Mitchell to the Mitchell family for ages because a) Madge Mitchell was a Neighbours character and b) if she had been at the naming party, she'd have been added at the same time Clive was. However, I found her on the Walford Wiki. Anemone Projectors 13:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

yes she was ^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.26.164 (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Anemone Projectors 12:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Is those the only scenes she appeared in? All I can see is that lots of people called her Aunt Madge, how do we know whose aunt she is? How do we know it's through birth and not through marriage to an uncle? How do we know her name is Mitchell? She could be included in an "others" section but I wouldn't give her her own section. Anemone Projectors 12:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Reception?

User:JuneGloom07 gave me this link on Twitter and I thought I'd check here if it is useable as it is based on a forum. Anemone Projectors 19:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think using the critical commentary would be fine, as that seems to be the opinion of Ruth Deller herself (and as we have an article on Low Culture, I assume the site itself is sufficiently notable), but I think it would be best to avoid saying that 'X character was voted Y by forum members' because I don't think that in and of itself is sufficiently representative or notable. Frickative 19:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

After I posted this I realised that it's only the order that is based on forums, the commentary itself is from Deller. Jane has no reception and what Deller said about her is particularly nice, so I'll definitely use it there. Maybe the Ferreiras have enough reception already though. Anemone Projectors 20:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

EastEnders was delisted as a GA

It was inevitible really as we all know what a state the article was in. Hopefully we can get around to improving the entire article per the suggestions already made at Talk:EastEnders and get it back to GA again! Anemone Projectors 01:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Classification

This field bothers me a bit. It seems to be in-universe information being disguised as real-world information. I think it's okay to say if a character is regular, recurring or guest, but saying a character is a former character is like changing "is" to "was" in the lead. If I watched the first episode of EastEnders, Arthur Fowler would be present, not past. This could also affect the list of past characters, because they're all present in episodes, just not the one most recently broadcast on BBC One. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. Anyone got any thoughts? Anemone Projectors 10:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Anybody care to comment on this? We also definitely need to do something about "home" - either list multiple locations as with Occupation or remove them all. Unfortunately now we don't have a dedicated EastEnders infobox I don't think we can actually remove the home field, but we can remove the classification one because it's not used in any other infobox. Anemone Projectors 10:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say remove it. It's in-universe, and one of those things that seems to attracts frequent edit conflicts the way the marital status field used to. I'd remove the home parameter for about the same reasons - that and it doesn't seem important to understanding the character in the same way that something like occupation does. Frickative 10:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The home one is particularly annoying because... Glenda Mitchell has moved like a billion times since she joined, and Lucas has been in police custody for one day yet this is his home. I'll wait for a few more opinions before going ahead, or if there are none after a while I'll just do it. I don't think any other soaps use the classification field do they? Anemone Projectors 11:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh I just checked a random Neighbours article and it's used. Anemone Projectors 11:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's one of those things that's probably only familiar to viewers rather than casual readers, limiting its usefulness. A lot of people will be familiar with Walford or Erinsborough, but the exact housing intricacies probably aren't common knowledge, making them a bit meaningless in the ibox. Frickative 11:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem getting rid of the classification field, but I'd like to keep the home field (the Neighbours' homes actually have a page to link to). I believe Coronation Street and Hollyoaks are now using the template, so you might have to ask the editors over at those projects what they think too. The romances field is one that I'd like to see the back of, I think it just takes up room in the box and some characters have more romances then family members. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 13:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I'd like to go with AP's suggestion re classification (regualr, recurring etc) and cut the past present bit. However, if we are suggesting thatsaying they are a former character is in universe and therefore shouldnt be in the infobox cos of re-runs, then wouldnt the date durations be the same? If I watch re-runs, I see Arthur Fowler in 2010, yet the infobox says he left in 1996? Re the home section. I think it should be removed from EE articles, but I think you'll have a problem keeping it off unless it's removed from the template entirely.GunGagdin ^Moan 13:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes we could keep classification but just removed former or present, and just say regular and recurring. It doesn't affect the durations, because that's real-world information, and duration is used in other character infoboxes. We haven't had a problem with romances or status being added in EastEnders articles, and not many problems with distant relatives, so I think we'll be ok to remove home. I can easily use AWB to do it and link back to this discussion in my edit summaries. Anemone Projectors 15:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

And we can still keep the links to the relevent sections, I don't have a problem with that. I don't think we should start changing the list of past characters! Just these two fields in the infoboxes. And they will still be available for other soaps to use how they wish. Anemone Projectors 16:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Home field for EE and Hollyoaks. Neighbours have their own article and are linked in though. I am really not much for the romance field.. at all! As for classification.. it's hard because you can argue that it's in-universe and out. In the article it's self the character is stated as still being a fictional character from the serial anyway. I think it's going to far though because the amount of editors that will keep changing it. You'd really have to keep on your toes with reverting it, I've found of late, mainly IP's are enoying changing infoboxes details, when you've got over 100 articles for each soap opera it's hard.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 16:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have every EastEnders page on my watchlist so I miss nothing. I can't see someone going around and reverting every single infobox change. Maybe a few, but probably not more than 10. I've not seen people changing more than a few EE infboxes at a time. Anemone Projectors 16:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well actually I've noticed how many reverts you do on EE, so you are hot on the heels of disruptive edits. So yeah I'd agree for to take away the the former-present part for EE. =)RAIN the ONE (Talk) 16:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if I can edit the template, using some "magic words", so that the home and romances fields don't display if the series field = EastEnders.... that would be helpful. Anemone Projectors 17:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(yes, I can.) Anemone Projectors 17:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Useful is that. The Romance field could be removed though, Neighbours and Hollyoaks editors probably will agree. Well Neighbours editors do agree there are only two of us lol.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 17:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that Emmerdale and Corrie use the template too. Even Victor Meldrew uses it! And Only Fools and Horses. But I wonder how many use classification, it's probably only relevant to soaps... but we're just going to edit it in the articles rather than remove it... but as for romances... Anemone Projectors 17:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Bianca Jackson GAR

Bianca Jackson is currently being reviewed for GA, I guess the nominator felt it was worthy though looking at the review - Talk:Bianca Jackson/GA1 - a lot of work needs to be done. Anyone willing to help out? I'm not sure I have the motivation at the moment. I think a peer review might have been better first, though, or at least some sort of discussion like was done with the Chrissie Watts article. Anemone Projectors 13:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Eek, not sure this was an article really ready to be nominated, but as we do have a week to kick it into shape I think it's doable. I'll try and sort out the references out this evening, and then see how it goes from there. Frickative 16:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We may need Gungadin as one of the things that has been brought up is page numbers for Colin Brake's book. Anemone Projectors 16:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

After chipping away for a few days I'm starting to reach my limit, but there's not all that much left to go over, so I'd appreciate a fresh pair of eyes if possible :) Frickative 01:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? There are literally only a dozen small issues left. I'll happily fix up the lead when it's done, but I'm not familiar with the storylines pertaining to the outstanding issues, and it would be a shame to needlessly fail at the last hurdle. Frickative 00:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

So sorry I wasnt around for this Frick. I would have helped out. What's the remaining issues and I will fix when I can. I didnt even know this got nominated! 15:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)--GunGagdin^Moan 15:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no worries! Most of the outstanding stuff is related to the spina bifida storyline. I was about 11 when it aired and some of the sources are partially paywalled, so I couldn't go much further with it. At the review page, all of the stuff that was dealt with has been sectioned off, so the only bits left are the ones that still needed doing :) Frickative 21:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just been nominated again! Anemone Projectors 22:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What should I do, take it down, can you do that? Didn't realise the remainder was going to be fixed. I just hoped it would get a quick look over, sometimes reviewers decide to ignore earlier reviews, took the chance. It's had a fair amount of time to get sorted though seeings the whole WP knew about it.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 22:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, don't take it down. There's plenty of time if people want to resolve the issues remaining from last time to do that. Some reviewers aren't as fussy, you're right, so it could pass with no changes necessary. We did all know about it but Gungadin has only recently returned from an absense. If you'd seen this discussion you'd have known we were planning to fix the rest before renominating. Anemone Projectors 23:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Characters from the 1980s

Someone's created list entries for Jessie Williams (EastEnders) and Karen Sibley, so I made the redirects, but I have no idea about these characters as I didn't watch EastEnders then. Is anyone able to confirm this information? It was added by an IP. Anemone Projectors 20:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, should they just go in an "others" section? Anemone Projectors 20:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

They are both bullshit. Delete.GunGagdin ^Moan 22:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. They are listed in our list of past characters though. Anemone Projectors 22:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I just checked Walford.net. They both apparently exist. J Williams appeared in 20th September 1988. Karen sibley 28 Jan 1988.Did the dates match this? I dont remember them, but perhaps i'm wrong.GunGagdin ^Moan 23:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

They had Karen appearing between 1 February and 17 September 1988, and Jessie between 5 February 1987 and 10 September 1988. So no. If they were just in one episode each then it was definitely false information. But they must have existed because they're on our list of past characters. I thought the storyline that was written was highly unlikely though. Apparently both were involved with Lynna Jackson (also listed as past) but the IP who added the information made Karen seem like a main character, and these are definitely very minor characters or we'd have heard more about them. Totally false information. Anemone Projectors 23:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

When I read it I instantly thought it was toot, because they made them seem like they had significant storylines and I had never heard of them. Lynna Jackson I do remember, she appeared briefly as the mother of Matthew Jackson, when he married Carmel Jackson.16:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I did revert initially because it sounded false but then I wondered and reverted myself. But if it sounds like a character is a major one I'll know it's false info next time. Done a few reverts of minor characters being added in the past. Anemone Projectors 19:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is Gordon Branning?

I have noticed that Jim Branning has a nephew named Gordon Branning who is also Derek, April, Carol, Suzy, Max and Jack's cousin. He doesn't have a separate article and I was wondering did he actually appear in any episodes, I was wondering did he appear in the late 90's say around April's wedding or when Carol visited her father in a selection of off-set episodes in 1998/9. I am almost sure that he hasn't been mentioned by any of the Branning siblings post 2006 (Max, Jack and Suzy)

I have also wondered how is he Jim's nephew, a son of jim's brother or on or a son of jim's sister born out of wed-lock hence having the Branning surname.

If gordan has not been seen in any episodes, a whole range of family has not been explored; jim's brother/sister and subsiquent sibling-in-laws, other nieces and nephews and jims parents, but despite this eastenders has mentioned jim's grandfather james william branning, who died in ww1. so who is the real gordon branning??????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.244.127 (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know he has never appeared, so was probably mentioned at some point in the 1990s. But I don't know that. The Branning family article says he is the son of Jim's brother. Jim's father is probably dead, having been born in 1897. I can't see them exploring this side of the family to be honest with you. But this is bordering on WP:FORUM. But I would like to know how we know about Gordon Branning. Anemone Projectors 00:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect I dont see how this is bordering on WP:FORUM I would just really like to know how we know Gordon Branning. Is here any way you could find this out?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.244.127 (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I just meant the bit about a whole range of other family members that could be explored was bordering on WP:FORUM. The question of Gordon Branning is a valid one and I would also like to know the answer. Perhaps another editor knows. Anemone Projectors 13:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it might have just been an off-guard comment once. Like Carol mentioning a 'cousin Gordon' years ago or something, he can't be that important... Alex250P (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Gordon was added in this edit by User:Conquistador2k6 on 27 March 2007. I note that was a Tuesday night so perhaps he was mentioned in that particular episode. I've sent Conquistador2k6 a message to see if he remembers anything. Anemone Projectors 17:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

At one stage in the mid 1990s, Sonia was desperate to be a bridesmaid at some cousin of Carol's wedding - she was boasting about it to Clare Bates and Arab Janine IIRC. But for some reason, Carol wouldnt attend the wedding. Think the cousin was in trouble with the law or something. This may be Gordon? GunGagdin^Moan 22:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Kim Fox

Evening. I made a page on Kim Fox ans User:AnemoneProjectors said I would get a wider opinion from here. Would it be okay if I started a new article on Kim Fox? Regards, --GSorby Desroid 21:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, GSorbyDesroid asked me on my userpage here where I said I thought we shouldn't split Kim off to a new article as there aren't that many sources and she's not been in the show for very long (just a handful of episodes so far). But I suggested we get other opinions just in case. Anemone Projectors 22:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is what I meant to say. I'm bad with words like that :/ --GSorby Desroid 22:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Presumably if she's to become a regular (?) she will get big enough coverage eventually, but right now, there's no need to split from the list. Great work though Gsorby. I suggest to contniue working on it and once more coverage is out there then there will be no objections to split.GunGagdin ^Moan 22:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Anemone and Gungadin. It's a great start, but I think it would be better left as a list entry for now, until there's wider coverage to work from. The general notability guidelines require "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", and I don't think four sources from one website is enough to justify a stand-alone article. Do we know if she's being upgraded from recurring status? If not, there's the issue of expansion - there might never be much more available than there is now. Still though, it's definitely a good start to build on :) Frickative 23:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Citing episodes/List of episodes

I was wondering if it would be a good idea to make a template for citing EastEnders episodes, based on the existing {{Cite episode}}. All it would need would be the episode "name" (something like "EastEnders 31/08/2010" -- I think that's how they are officially named), the last part of the url from the BBC Programmes site, which could be a field called "code" or something like that, and the broadcast date, with optional fields for the writer, director and executive producer. I did a test version in my userspace User:AnemoneProjectors/Template:Cite EastEnders episode. What do people think? I'm actually working on a... LIST OF EPISODES. Yes, this is a mad thing to do, but I think it would be really good, so having a shorter way to cite would be quite helpful, and BBC Programmes is used all the time for the "other" characters. Anemone Projectors 19:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't even begin to tell you how impressed I am by the 'list of episodes' idea. Doing the Holby City ones took me six months and most of my sanity, and EastEnders has eight times as many episodes! The 2010 list is looking really fab. Just shout if there's anything you'd like a hand with :) Re: the titles - doesn't the BBC just separate the episodes by airdate? I think the title column might possibly be superfluous, but not sure. ~~What would an EastEnders episode template do that cite episode doesn't?~~ Frickative 13:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, striking the last part of my reply because you already said what it would do, lol. I'm not sure that saving the few seconds it takes to fill in parameters with 'EastEnders, BBC, BBC One' is enough to require a separate template when 'cite episode' has the same basic functionality. How do you envision using it in the episode lists? Frickative 13:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I just thought it might be easier but I guess you're right. I won't make a new template. I was gonna use it to source the writers and directors. The BBC does just separate them by airdate, so I don't think they have actual titles. The only ones that do are "EastEnders Live" and "Pretty Baby...." but I could just link the episode number to the articles (and the two-handers) instead of the titles. The only problem is the {{Episode list}} template requires a title. If I don't include that column, it's all messed up. But no, they're not properly titled because when an episode goes out on a date it wasn't originally scheduled for, the "title" is still the airdate, or when two episodes are combined into one, the same thing. Anemone Projectors 16:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at my 2010 list of episodes again. I've got rid of the title for Jan and Feb, but as "EastEnders Live" has a title, I think we should somehow include it. It's really difficult! Anemone Projectors 19:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, it's looking very neat now :D It's a shame to have the line break for "Live" but I can't think of any better way of including it, so I think that's the best way of doing it. Btw, are you planning on making the tables sortable? I think these are going to be a great set of articles :) Frickative 20:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec cos I took too long to save) Also, I thought it best not to include episode synopses, do you agree? And am I right to separate by month or should I remove the sections (when I'm finished) and just replicate the table headers? Any other improvements I can do?

(reply, not ec) Yes I thought I could make it sortable after I just looked at the Holby ones. Thing is the main Holby list is good sortable but doesn't work in the series articles because of the synopses! I put two versions of Live in the table to see which one looked best. But just linking to the article misses out its name. I could use "AltTitle" as I'm using "RTitle" for the dates column so that it's the second column (better there I think in this case) but I'd have to un-centre the column to do that. I'm worried when I go back that I'll miss out episodes, but a while back I did a numbered list of all episodes to date (which I haven't kept up to date) which I got from TV.com so hopefully none will be missed. I won't be able to get ratings before 1999 or whatever year BARB goes back to. And I'll have to start using other sites (not BBC Programmes) to get the credits. Anemone Projectors 20:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Forget what I said about AltTitle, it only works with Title, not RTitle. Anemone Projectors 20:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I'd forgotten about that annoying synopsis/sortable bug. I think I'd be inclined to leave out episode summaries and make the tables sortable, and then perhaps if you wanted to ultimately model it after season/series articles, you could add a few paragraphs of prose summarising the main storylines from the year as a whole. It's a pity the BARB and BBC Programmes only go so far back. I heard recently that the BBC are in the process of adding credit information for back episodes, but I've been waiting on that for Holby for nearly two years so I'm not holding my breath lol. Frickative 20:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooh the storyline summaries sounds like a good idea, but we couldn't really name the articles "EastEnders (series 25)" because they're not actual series. I think as it's sortable I should get rid of the monthly sections... I guess IMDb is going to be the best source for older episodes. Anemone Projectors 21:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: the title, I know, but I was thinking that if you wanted to you could still use the season/series model and have info on the cast and crew that came and went over the year, awards, critical commentary on the years' storylines etc. Disregard totally if you prefer straight lists, I've just been working so much on an FL nom this fortnight I have season articles on the brain! Sorry, forgot to comment on the monthly sections before, but I actually really like them - I think it makes navigation a lot easier given that there are 200 odd episodes a year. Frickative 21:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a yearly summary of EastEnders would be nice though we do have History of EastEnders which talks about it per decade, so I think we should keep the episodes just a straight list. I do like the idea of a combined table for the whole year so it's all sortable, you can see who wrote what episodes and which were the highest rated episodes for the whole year. I could still break it up though (watchlist my draft and I'll combine Jan and Feb to show you). Anemone Projectors 21:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Damn I won't be able to do that either because it breaks the sorting!!! Anemone Projectors 21:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Argh, that's a pity! I guess you should just go for combining the whole year. If it seems like too much in the end it can always be split up again later. And I'd forgotten History of EastEnders existed, never mind :) Frickative 21:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think three-month sections could be manageable but maybe a bit silly, but the whole year is probably going to be too much. I suppose I should use the {{sortname}} template for all the people! Anemone Projectors 21:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(undent) This is annoying! How do I use the sortname template when there are two writers for one episode? lol Anemone Projectors 21:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ermmm, I think with Holby I just made it sort for the one whose surname came first alphabetically, though that probably wasn't a very elegant solution lol. The dates need {{dts}}, too - I wish the sortable tables were more intuitive. Btw, I'm after something a bit repetitive to work on atm, would I be treading on your toes if I started knocking one up for 2009 or earlier? Just checking, I'd rather be a help than a hindrance. Frickative 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I sorted on the first name of the two, rather than the first alphabetically. Actually, I put them separately in two sortname templates and it sorted on the first name of the two, who is the one who was credited first. I realised I needed {{dts}} instead of {{startdate}}. Sure you can work on 2009 if you want. :-) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006m86d/episodes/2009 <- also I was using the five.tv pages to make sure the episode numbers add up but I don't think that goes back very far. What do we do if we complete all 25 years and the episode numbers are wrong?! Anemone Projectors 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, that happened to me with Holby. I finally finished the whole thing, then they aired the 500th episode and I realised the count is off by one episode. Damned if I can figure out where ¬_¬ I guess we should just hope for the best! Frickative 23:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well we know that EastEnders Live was episode number whatever, I hope it works out but we can cross that bridge when we reach it. Hmm it's taking longer to add the names now I've done it sortable cos I have to type a |, I can't just copy and paste the name! Anemone Projectors 23:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

^ "[1]", youtube.

[mirror-1] "[1]", youtube.

[1]