Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions on 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 10

←

Archive 12

Jodie Gold

What do people think about splitting off Jodie Gold from the list to a separate article? I've added a bit to the list entry but in my userspace I've got up to ten references. I'm still not sure as there isn't that much on her actual development, which is the most important part. But what does everyone else think? ^{AnemoneProjectors} 19:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, with this, it should be absolutely fine. I agree :) --GSorby ^{Chat with Me!} 19:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Go for it.GunGagdin ^Moan 12:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there is enough info for her now.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 13:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Done –Anemone Projectors– 14:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Doggy doorstop

Found this image on Flickr with a Commons-compatible licence, feel free to add it to Den/Chrissie/wherever –Anemone Projectors– 11:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Roxie mitchell.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Roxie mitchell.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Anemone Projectors 11:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we should change this for an earlier image where she's wearing loads of makeup, showing off her bra straps, and wearing really bad hair extensions. There's at least one in the image history... Anemone Projectors 11:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

VERY INTERESTING DISCUSSION Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 50#Characters/actors images replacement –Anemone Projectors– 22:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

ANYTHING NEED DOING?

Is there anything needed to do wiht Eatsenders,please can i NOT do links as i havent be taught that yet!!!--MayhemMario (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Loads, many past minor characters need sections in the lists, some main articles need referencing and real world information added. Check the To do box at top of page, which poss needs updating, but gives you an idea of things you can do.GunGagdin ^Moan 23:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Recently departed section

Hey does anybody think it's a good idea to have a recently departed section on the list of EE characters at the bottom like the one below?

Recently departed

Sonia Fowler
Played by Natalie Cassidy
Appeared 21 December 1993 – 21 January 2011. Poppy Meadow
Played by Rachel Bright
Appeared 11 January 2011 – 13 January 2011. Charlie Slater
Played by Derek Martin
Appeared 4 September 2000 – 13 January 2011. Kenny Morris
Played by Ryan Philpott
Appeared 25 June 2007 – 7 January 2011. James Branning
Unknown
Appeared 30 December 2010 – 31 December 2010

Stacey Slater
Played by Lacey Turner
1 November 2004 – 25 December 2010. Lily Branning
Unknown
Appeared 23 June 2010 – 25 December 2010. Peter Beale
Played by Thomas Law
Appeared 16 December 1993 – 24 December 2010. Gloria MacDonald
Played by Michele Austin
Appeared 20 December 2010 – 21 December 2010 Roger Green
Played by Daniel Brocklebank
Appeared 6 December 2010 – 7 December 2010.

GSorby ^{Chat with Me!} 20:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen it on the Corrie page but I don't see the point of it in EastEnders as the list of past characters is in reverse chronological order. –Anemone Projectors– 20:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

to be honest i thunk it is a really good idea and you can easily see who's left. Im voting all the way for it!--MayhemMario (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I dont see the point of it. How long does a person stay "recently departed" anyway?GunGagdin^Moan 16:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably like Corrie it would just be the last 8 departed characters, but you can easily see the most recently departed characters from the list of past characters. –Anemone Projectors– 16:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it really jives with policy. List of past EastEnders characters is essentially a spin-out article of List of EastEnders characters, so while some sort of summary could be appropriate, cherry-picking only "recently" departed characters is, well, recentism. Frickative 16:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a great idea, I love it. But it's only cool to me, useful to fans, why would anyone else want to see that who isn't a fan of the show. So I guess it doesn't warrant it being here as you can easily look at the past list. I wonder if Corrie discussed it?RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 22:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

i think it is a great idea as being a fan of eastenders it would be really usefull to me!--MayhemMario (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm but we don't make Wikipedia for fans, we make it for everyone. It's an encyclopaedia, not a fansite. –Anemone Projectors– 18:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Durations and final appearances – do the spin-off episodes count?

Examples – Charlie Cotton appeared in a spin-off in 2000 but made his last appearance in EastEnders in 1990. He's been moved from departing in 1990 to 2000. On his page, his last appearance is given as 2000. I think that because this wasn't actual EastEnders, we shouldn't include it. We should, however, add the year to the spin-off. The same goes for Bianca Jackson's duration. I don't think there are others. What do other people think? –Anemone Projectors– 16:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

i agree with you there people should have their last appereance from when they appered in Eastneders.If you could go to my page there are a few questions which i kind of need answering,if yor not busy--MayhemMario (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else have comments? Charlie and Bianca's pages were changed but I reverted due to this not being concluded. –Anemone Projectors– 08:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw that edit... The spin-offs wouldn't count if you're talking about duration in terms of the single programme EastEnders, but they probably would if the duration is about the characters themselves..! Since the articles are about the characters, I'd say the spin-off count. (Dunno about that dodgy Frank Butcher comedy show though :) )Stephenb (Talk) 08:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject you might be interested in

I saw someone add a template for Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters to a page and joined, it's a new Project so I thought I'd let you lot know about it! –Anemone Projectors– 13:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ronnie Mitchell

i am sure it says that ronnie mitchell is only taking a break from the show so shouldn't she ahve a temporary departure like jane beales? Also shouldn't Connor Sanley be on the past characters as hasn't he left aswell as Jordan?--MayhemMario (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as we know for certain, Ronnie isn't coming back, though the actress hasn't ruled it out. Connor was seen with the EE cast at the NTA awards apparently, suggesting that he might return, so we're holding off for now. Stephenb (Talk) 18:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

what has happened

what ahs happended to the eastenders charcaters page? Its all messed up!--MayhemMario (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone made a bizarre edit, which I have just reverted. No need to ask really in future, we'll always revert or fix things that are wrong :) (or you can do it if you feel you can) –Anemone Projectors– 17:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact, they moved Ronnie from departing to returning. Which is wrong for two reasons. A) she hasn't departed yet and B) her return hasn't been confirmed. When they did that, they removed the bottom of one of the tables meaning it wasn't closed, and also copied half the hidden comment, meaning that wasn't closed either! –Anemone Projectors– 17:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Same anon made that sort of change earlier on today, which I reverted. Always 86.X.Y.Z.. Stephenb (Talk) 18:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this right?

86.29.132.20 the user has put on ian beale's profile that he is leaving is this true?--MayhemMario (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I've reverted it. It wasn't cited and there's pretty much no way it could be true – being so specific about a date in the future is virtually impossible! Stephenb (Talk) 18:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll find, MayhemMario, that EastEnders articles get vandalised regularly, but they'll always be reverted fairly quickly. You can even do it yourself. Did I already say that? :) –Anemone Projectors– 20:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

sadly i dont have a clue!!!!=)--MayhemMario (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

PICTURES NEEDED

Please anyone can you find some up to date pictures of

Whitney Dean
Liam Butcher
Dot Cotton
Tiffany Dean
Jean Slater

Thanks! --MayhemMario (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Whitney's is fine, she hasn't changed, Liam, same reason, Dot hasn't changed unless your counting the wrinkles. Tiffany's is fine, she hasn't changed, and I updated Jean a few months ago. GSorby ^{Chat with Me!} 21:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

none need replacing.--GunGagdin^Moan 21:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Images don't need to be recent, they just need to be of the character. –Anemone Projectors– 21:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get the pictures from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.3.102 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

People get them from a lot of places, but I get them by using EasyCap with my freeview box. Easycap is a USB device that allows you to connect video cables (yellow, white, red) to the computer. --GSorby ^{Chat with Me!} 20:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

God children

do we add godchildren onto people's artciles becasue if we did dot branning would have tons!--MayhemMario (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should. –Anemone Projectors– 11:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

They're not family so nope.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 14:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparent departures.

ok, so, i just wanted to bring this up here first. Apparently, it is true that Glenda Mitchell will be leaving the square in March. But how could this be possible? It would've come up months ago. and, in tomorrow's news there's going to be a story about Neil Mcdermott and the apparent sex scandal he has been involved with, along with a 16 year old girl, and he is supposedly getting kicked off eastenders. we should do some research to see if these are true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.132.13 (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why Glenda's departure is only being reported through Barber's website. Digital Spy have reported it but it doesn't look like they contacted EastEnders for confirmation, like they normally would. I don't like that they aren't announcing things anymore, like Peter Beale. McDermott isn't leaving. –Anemone Projectors– 10:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Danny Mitchell

Danny Mitchell

1. Storylines (tick) 2. Referneces (tick)

I dont see there any reason ,apart from that he has left, at why he cannot be split off he has 12 refernces thats enough?! Do you agree?--MayhemMario (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I quite like Danny being here, simply because it feels like we could end up with a list of 10 characters who won't ever be split off, and 13 short paragraphs with links to main articles. Also it adds more references to the article, and we know it won't get any longer. I don't think he takes up too much space, and storylines can be made shorter. But that's just my personal preference. But we normally discuss splitting off characters centrally at WT:EE. –Anemone Projectors– 17:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

the original discussion is at list of eastenders charcetrs 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayhemMario (talk • contribs) 17:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont mind either way. We do have lesser characters with their own pages like Adam Best and Dr Al etc. I suppose if it meets notability guidelines, it's entitled to its own page and no one could really argue against that, but no preference either way here.GunGagdin ^Moan 01:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image captions

Am I right in reverting all the image captions? It's only necessary to give a caption to identify an actor when there have been more than one in a particular role. Or do we want to let people know the year of the image? In which case we only need to say something like Alfie in 2010 rather than Shane Richie as Alfie Moon (2010). I also feel that if we do use a caption, it should identify the character first, such as Sam as portrayed by Danniella Westbrook in XXXX. Also shouldn't the actor's name be linked since it would appear before the actual portrayer field in the infobox? –Anemone Projectors– 09:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind actually having captions – I guess to someone unfamiliar with EE they might help. I agree that the actor's name needn't be present if they are added (unless there has been more than one actor as you say). Having the year is quite useful for younger characters and those whose appearance changes over time (e.g. if we had an image of Ian with his moustache!). Stephenb (Talk) 09:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Im with Stephen, I see no harm and I suppose it's quite good to say what year the still is from.GunGagdin ^Moan 01:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Same with me GSorby ^{Chat with Me!} 11:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll stop removing them then. But do we want "Shane Richie as Alfie Moon (2010)" or "Alfie in 2010"? I think it should be a photo of the character (optionally played by the actor), not the actor as the character. –Anemone Projectors– 12:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, sounds fine Stephenb (Talk) 14:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What sounds fine? –Anemone Projectors– 16:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I'd made it clear before, and that I was agreeing with you here – no actor names unless necessary :) Stephenb (Talk) 17:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Good good. And if we have an actor name, is it "Sam (Mitchell) as portrayed by Danniella Westbook" or "Daniella Westbook as Sam (Mitchell)"? –Anemone Projectors– 18:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sam (Mitchell) as portrayed by Danniella Westbook GunGagdin^Moan 22:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I put the (Mitchell) bit in brackets as a surname might not even be necessary. –Anemone Projectors– 23:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles

Category:EastEnders articles in need of real-world perspective Just a thank you to Raintheone for providing lots of sources recently. I am trying to work my way through this category so we can finally get all the EE articles referenced. I really feel this should be a priority, because once we get these few referenced with some OOU stuff, all our articles will at least be free from AFD threat. So, if anyone can help out here, it'd be much appreciated.GunGagdin ^Moan 01:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find some source for some more, add them to the talk pages if I do.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 01:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Raintheone.GunGagdin ^Moan 22:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Portal:EastEnders

Some of you might not know about the portal that was set up some years ago. Trampikey used to maintain the Did You Know section, as well as selected biography and article, while I would maintain the news section. Obviously Trampikey hasn't been around for a long while and I did change the selected article once, and last updated the news in September 2010. So I was wondering if anyone would like to help continue to maintain it? –Anemone Projectors– 11:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll help as I have a lot of free time right now. GSorby ^{Chat with Me!} 12:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A new Page....?

I think that with everything which has to be done with it we could create a page called 'Baby Swap' we have had pages about storylines and to be honest i think that if we created a page about this this one would be the best one yet with all the reception and everything.... What do you think or is there already one?--MayhemMario (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

AP is working on one in his sandbox here. :) Frickative 13:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes though I need your help Frickative because it's too complex. –Anemone Projectors– 13:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh sure, any section in particular? I'd been thinking of offering to help for a while, but I didn't want to tread on your toes! Frickative 13:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I just don't know where to start as there is so much. The thought of even trying is too daunting! –Anemone Projectors– 21:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha, looking at the number of sources that have accumulated I can see why! I guess the easiest way to start expanding it would be to decide on a rigid structure, eg. splitting "Reception" into separate paragraphs for cast response, charities and advocacy groups, critical commentary on social responsibility/realism, then the performances/writing/production... (I need to read the sources to get a handle on them, I'm just assuming that's the gist of it.) "Production" is likely going to be easier because it's more limited, but it's awkward that it'll rely on explaining the public controversy wrt the storyline changes.

Semi-but-not-really-related, I wanted to write a small episode article on "EastEnders: Whitney's Story", but I haven't seen any proper, non-blog reviews :( Frickative 00:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And while we're here, can anyone help at Talk:Asher Levi/GA1? –Anemone Projectors– 00:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Rainie Cross

A discussion has been started at Talk:List of EastEnders characters (2007) on splitting Rainie Cross (despite the fact we agreed to start all such discussions here). I'm against it since she's only been in 13 episodes so far and I think we should wait and see. However, User:AnemoneProjectors/Rainie Cross makes a good article so I think she's notable. (And I think some of the DS refs should be replaced with the originals, where tehy are reporting on a report by another newspaper, which will show more notability). –Anemone Projectors– 18:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well like I said on the 2007 list talk, it's miles better than Anthony Trueman. She has 12/13 refs and a lot of reception. I'm all for it! :) GSorby ^{Chat with Me!} 18:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And I've replaced some of the DS refs where they were reporting from other sources, not their own, which added one ref. –Anemone Projectors– 19:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Reckon we're all in agreement? GSorby ^{Chat with Me!} 19:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I brought the discussion here (its rightful place) so that more members of the project would see it. –Anemone Projectors– 19:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Going against the flow, I think that with articles that just scrape the GNG, we should take into account potential for future development as well. With enough work, the lists could potentially make it to Featured status some day, but articles like Danny Mitchell, or Rainie if split off, aren't very likely to make it to GA. Separating them serves to make the lists weaker as well. I'm not that invested either way – just a different angle to consider :) Frickative 20:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be split off. Rainie could become a regular if all goes well, unlike Danny. (Who in theory could still come back.) Everything is uncertain when it comes to the future of soaps.. It serves best to discuss in both areas as only a real fan would look here.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 20:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually inclined to agree with Frickative. The original plan for 2010 was to go for FL. Rainie might leave after the wedding, she might stay, we don't know because we haven't been told and we don't have a crystal ball. So splitting her off because she might become regular is silly. Which is why I said we should leave her where she is until she's been in it for maybe a month or two. –Anemone Projectors– 20:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The list could still survive FL review without her. Through it's writing, the other character's OOU and so forth. My point was if the references incline she notable why not. All of the second gen of E20 characters have articles, they are not that notable at the end of the day. That's the sole reason I thought it wouldn't matter if she has an article. I did say find a couple more sources.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 20:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I really would like her to be split off seeing that istarted the discussion! I do think she has enough and the article AP did was realyl good! I can find more refs tough quite eay as she was involved in a mjor storyline!--MayhemMario (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think split her off into her own article. Sal Martin has her own article despite appearing in just a handful of episodes over the years. Rainie keeps coming back and the article is in good shape! Bleaney (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

she has now got 16 refs--MayhemMario (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(undent) At the end of the day, it's notability policy you need to satisfy, and any character can have its own page if it is shown to be notable. No one's under any obligation to follow what is said on a wikiproject, so she can have her own page. I dont think she merits it, but she does merit it more than some of the characters we have allowed to have their own page even if they were considered regular. So I am ambivalent.GunGagdin ^Moan 19:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Right lets do a vote--MayhemMario (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For Rainie getting her own article:

MayhemMario
Don't know if this is necessary, but if so, I'll vote yes. GSorby ^{Chat with Me!} 17:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Bleaney

Against Rainie getting her own article:

Per 5 albert square below – recurring characters need not have their own article. Stephenb (Talk) 18:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Rainie getting her own article:

No, let's not do a vote. Wikipedia doesn't work on voting, it works on consensus. A straw poll may be a final resort but we don't need to do one just yet. –Anemone Projectors– 17:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We've got to make a decison sometime! She has got 14 refs, shes returning and the article you made looks great what else is there?--MayhemMario (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It having more references is certainly more encouraging.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 18:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't do things by voting on Wikipedia, we do it by consensus Mario. As Rainie is still only a recurring character I say no.--5 albert square (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sharon Rickman (Watts)

Apparently, a return is imminent, Bryan Kirkwood has been in talks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.3.102 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well until we get a source we can't add her to returning. GSorby ^{Chat with Me!} 12:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

yeah we cant say yes yet... I heard that zoe slater has had talks to!--MayhemMario (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

A few things...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It looks like a few characters are returning.... Ashely seem to be... 1 Seb seems to be.... 2 Rainie seems to be... 1

Just to let you know!

--MayhemMario (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ashley Chubb? He hasn't left... Seb we knew about, he is already listed. Rainie we already knew about, she is already listed. And this would have been better placed on Talk:List of EastEnders characters because it concerns that page rather than the overall project. :S But never mind, it didn't even need to be mentioned. –Anemone Projectors– 22:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OH WELL.... I wasnt meaning that (sigh...) i meant they were returning upon returning. If you click on the links it shows that Rainie is returning after the wedding, seb will be on our screens again and ashley will be to. I knwo they are either returning r present but they are RETURNING!!!

DISCUSSION MOVING HERE..... Talk:List of EastEnders characters --MayhemMario (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dotty Cotton

Split of or not? 10 refs, charectriazation,reception and development and HUGE storylines and you can also add a 'See Also' part as she is a soap opera villian!!! (just remembered).--MayhemMario (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that we should leave past characters where they are. Although she has ten refs, two are storyline refs confirming her dates, not "real world" references, and the development section is very short compared to the storylines. I prefer the storylines to be shorter than the real-world stuff, or about the same size at best. –Anemone Projectors– 17:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it should stay in the list. It's really great that a lot of these lesser characters are being beefed up with references, but when they barely tiptoe over the notability line and have no real potential to grow in future, I don't think there's any need to split them off. Plus, the storyline section at the moment is at least twice as long as necessary. When it's been pulled back to a reasonable level, the entire section will hover around 600-800 words of readable prose. I know length alone isn't a reason not to split, but my instinct is that it's fine in the list. Frickative 23:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No to split. She's very minor in the grand scheme of things. There are much more notable, long-running characters that have been listified from the 80s and 90s; however, I think it'll only likely be me that gets around to getting them split-worthy. I tend to think that anyone listified in the 2000s (particularly the last five years) is there for a good reason, mainly because they are not that notable. Possible exception being Rainie.GunGagdin ^Moan 00:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim Branning

the source from digital spy said that although he has filmed his last moment is albert square, he may be available sometimes to do appearances... soooo....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.3.102 (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The key word being may. We can't write Wikipedia articles on maybes. –Anemone Projectors– 23:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Kim Fox

Looking at MayhemMario's userspace article on Kim Fox, she is definitely elegible for splitting off. She has more information than Jodie for example. Eight references are enough? What does everyone reckon? GSσяву ^{Chat with Me!} 19:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well there's one extra source there, and as it's a reception source I'm more inclined to agree. Plus I have one more to add on Kim's style. I think I cleaned up the list since Mario added information so I don't recommend using his draft. But I worry that we're turning into a fansite lately. –Anemone Projectors– 22:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Reserving my opinion on splitting it until I can read through properly, but the storyline section needs a lot of work before any split takes place. If we can do 25 years of Ian Beale in 750 words, there's no way 1 year of Kim needs even more than that. Frickative 22:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have used this ref before and noticed a bit of reception for her. [1].Rain the 1 ^BAM 23:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That's cool, I think that would go in a "characterisation" ("characterisation and style"?) section, especially if I add what I have. –Anemone Projectors– 23:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look at it now its got 14 refs. i have added a lot of refs and changed/swapepd. Please say what yuo think!MayhemMario (talk)

I think she's good for a split! Bleaney (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I'm all for it :) GSσяву ^{Chat with Me!} 19:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Same as Gsorby!--MayhemMario (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

What do we do know? Shall i go ahead and split her? Im confused as this is my first time....--MayhemMario (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with splitting it off – unlike other recent subjects discussed, this one at least has the potential for future development. However, it would be good if someone could fix the storyline section before, rather than after the split takes place – it would be a shame to start it off in need of so much clean up. Frickative 19:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(←) ~~I was waiting for Frickative's opinion first... –Anemone Projectors– 19:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)~~ By the way her reply wasn't there when I was looking at the page. –Anemone Projectors– 20:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

i did it, i think! Please help if doen wrong, sorry Frickative saw it after i did it. =(--MayhemMario (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You did it wrong. I moved the page back to your userspace. –Anemone Projectors– 19:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

oh wait i didnt ='(--MayhemMario (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks what did i do wrong?--MayhemMario (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Watch and learn :D GSσяву ^{Chat with Me!} 19:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

GSorby you did it wrong too. You have to put in your edit summary where it's being merged to/from. –Anemone Projectors– 19:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

so im confuzled, is that my articel that i created or is it yours or is it gsorbys.... It could eb all three of ours!!--MayhemMario (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that GSorby copied it from your userspace, and then I incorporated some things from my userspace. But actually it doesn't matter, because it came from the list and nobody "owns" anything on Wikipedia. All this editing has made me very hot, and you've all kept me away from my watchlist :P –Anemone Projectors– 20:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what the rush was to split it off with the most substantial section in a bit of a state, but (and I'm not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs here, I know the vast majority of you know this, but in light of multiple recent discussions I think it bears repeating) – "Storyline" sections should be there to contextualise the real-world information. The OOU sections shouldn't be a fancy garnish on an episode-by-episode plot recap. Before future split discussions emerge, a good question to consider is "if there was no storyline section here, would this article still have a chance of standing on its own merits?" Frickative 20:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you Frickative. –Anemone Projectors– 20:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Drawing your attention

We have talked about this before but before you say anything its improved. If you could on my userpage there is a link to Sandbox 2 whic is fro Rainie Cross. It has got overall 22 refs look actually quite good. If you would have a look a post your comments here: thanks =) --MayhemMario (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

To make life easier for you all, the sandbox is here. I'm for this as 22 references is better than most EE articles and it has a decent amount of text. GSσяву ^{Chat with Me!} 14:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact, do it, do it, do it! Rainie has a one night stand with Jack and maybe goes further. Perhaps we can make her regular now? GSσяву ^{Chat with Me!} 14:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

already started that discussion here.--MayhemMario (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's so not helpful when discussions are started on 27 different talk pages. –Anemone Projectors– 18:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I cant think of any decent reason to object with that level of coverage shown. I am in favour of splitting.GunGagdin ^Moan 03:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Me too, it's a great article. I actually love the fact that she's only made a handful of appearances, yet can be split off. –Anemone Projectors– 08:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

so what now?--MayhemMario (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Shall I sort it for you? Because you need to make sure the edit summaries are correct. –Anemone Projectors– 10:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this about Rainie? Oh can I do it :) ? GSσяву ^{Chat with Me!} 10:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As long as the edit summaries are correct, for the purposes of GFDL. –Anemone Projectors– 10:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Look im happy for either GSorby or AnemoneProjectors to do it dosent really bother me! You both have acess to my sandbox so to be honest you can sort that out between you to!MayhemMario (talk)

Article names

Well everyone, I think this needs to be discussed properly. I see WP:COMMONNAME does list articles such as animals to have their common name such as a Guinea Pig for example, but does this actually apply to fictional characters? See, if I were to search for Ronnie Branning, it redirects to Ronnie Mitchell. I don't see why we can't have a redirect to the actual married name. If people know Ronnie better as Mitchell, they'll still find the article as they'll be redirected to it. Even the official BBC website names Ronnie as Branning. I know we have major problems with the articles so why don't we go by the official BBC EastEnders website? GSσяву ^{Dιng Dσng!} 17:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's probably been discussed properly. Fictional characters aren't real people, the article represents the character as a whole, not just the latest episode. So we go by the best known name rather than the "current" name. In most cases, it's the original name the character was created with. This is an encylopaedia, remember, not a fan's guide to all things EastEnders. –Anemone Projectors– 20:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Arjoccolenty

Arjoccolenty (talk · contribs) has made a number of edits to articles, changing years of marriage for characters and moving names about in the fictional family trees. Are these edits correct? –Anemone Projectors– 10:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Gungadin reverted one edit, and the user is making up a load of weird EastEnders-related stuff in userspace, so I've reverted the other edits. –Anemone Projectors– 23:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Walford and Albert Square

Would anyone support Walford and Albert Square being merged? Neither have many references, and both are fairly short articles, so I think it would be a fairly good thing. Or we could just merge the whole thing to EastEnders#Setting, as essentially the Walford article would just be about that. Or split off that section into Walford. Or rename it to Setting of EastEnders. Then we could include the off-set episodes as well (which we already thought about merging with EastEnders#Setting)? Hmm that's so interesting. –Anemone Projectors– 15:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you and i think that you should call it Setting of EastEnders like you said as it would make it more clear but if you were to do this could you add a section on buisness as it is really hard to know what buisness there actually are in walford.--MayhemMario (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need Setting of EastEnders really, just Walford, and merge the off-set stuff as has been discussed on that talk page. Just want to merge Albert Square with Walford. –Anemone Projectors– 20:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah i agree with AP i think that Albert Sqyare is quite good as an article but has a lot of priblems with it so if we merged it with Walford and named it Walford and have a ll the places it would make it better,right? --MayhemMario (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

we never finsihed this? MayhemMario (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Moon family

I just found this article created in February. What do we want to do with it? Clearly not notable, would only be created as a redirect when our list of EastEnders families goes live (if ever!). –Anemone Projectors– 12:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

1) shouldnt we rename it 'Alfie Moon'? :D and also no point of it 3) live? MayhemMario (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

DeleteGunGagdin ^Moan 12:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Shall we AFD it? –Anemone Projectors– 12:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Created by a disruptive editor anyway.Rain the 1 ^BAM 15:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

PROD first? AFD probably wont be necessary as noone is editing it.GunGagdin ^Moan 15:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok yeah I'll PROD it and it it's removed then we'll go to AFD. –Anemone Projectors– 17:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Albert and Lou

The article here says that Albert and Lou's marriage began in 1939 and ended in 1970. But Albert Beale died in 1965 which would dissolve their marriage after he died. It also said that Harry Beale was the first legitmate child born to Albert and Lou, but he was born in 1936. So shouldn't their marriage be from 1936–1970 and not from 1939–1970? Arjoccolenty (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

MayhemMario

It looks like we've lost MayhemMario (talk · contribs) from Wikipedia. I feel kind of bad now for sometimes being too critical of his edits but I'm pretty sure he took it all in good spirit. I don't suppose anyone knows why he left? He left a few of his subpages with a note saying we could use them if we wanted or delete them if not. They were drafts for Dotty Cotton, Rob Grayson, Manda Best and another page with a list of possible sources. Shall I move them into my userspace so we don't forget about them? –Anemone Projectors– 17:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Shame,nice user. I think we should create the articles in his/hers Honour! 193.35.132.55 (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not a good reason to create articles. –Anemone Projectors– 20:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Cant you merge his edits to the articles or sections in lists? What's the point in keeping them in user space. Unless Mario comes back, they will likely be forgotten, but if the work's already been done, then shame to see it wasted. So long Mario, always a shame to see an editor retire.GunGagdin ^Moan 22:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ask him on Twitter AP. If it is Wiki related, try and convince him to return. It is a shame really.. As for his works, they could be uploaded to the mainspace now.Rain the 1 ^BAM 23:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Gungadin, I think most of it's been merged, especially Manda, as I asked him to do it. I don't know about the others, someone would have to compare the list entries to the userspace drafts to find out. Rain, he's not on Twitter, is he? –Anemone Projectors– 00:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

really? has he left? Oh... He was the only nice person on here. Shame. Hope he comes back. and finishes off fighting to split Manda and Dotty off. :'( 92.19.134.3 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mario, why not just log in again if you want to keep editing? –Anemone Projectors– 21:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that Mario then? If so come back. Is that him, anyone? Rain the 1 ^BAM 22:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously is him. Yes Mario, come back!! Why did you go? GSorby – Talk! 22:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Classic Mario edit summaries :) –Anemone Projectors– 23:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

So he is playing games.. Obviously you should come back – Manda would of been split after the sources were added. It'll just be sitting pretty if you don't come back and finish what you started. lolRain the 1 ^BAM 23:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

just to say the second Ip was me not some Mario guy. Dont no about the first =) 92.19.134.3 (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, just to say i've left,for good! Saw the comments you made above, the IP's werent me! Ahh!! Im asking two things,Split of Manda for me and the second carry on editing! Your all very talented at Wikipedia, so just try your best! If you ever want me im not on Twitter but just leave a message for me on my Userpage and i'll try and do whatever you want me to do. If you do something which kind of involved me just keep me posted! Especially splitting off characters! I'll come on every day look to see if i have any messages, if not log out again but if i do, i'll do whatever you want! Bye Guys, YOU BETTER KEEP ME INFORMED. And by the way touching words AP, im impressed. MayhemMario (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Oh one last thing, take the pages AP or bin them, I dot mind, just thougt there be usefull! MayhemMario (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yer right. 19:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

92.19.134.3 (talk · contribs) is 100% Mario! –Anemone Projectors– 12:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Mario, your disguises were a bit shit, to be fair. You could have been a tad more subtle with the IP replies if you were wanting to fool people! lol GunGagdin^Moan 16:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't keep track of this – but I would like to say there is obviously no point in keeping you informed if you chose to leave. However you haven't left, you are still here engaging as a sock puppet. We are here to edit, not boost your ego or do you favours to make you stay. If you wanted Manda split off you would have made a bigger effort to add more sources (which there are) to the article. In a nutshell no one is going to make Manda's page just because you appear to 'left' over it.Rain the 1 ^BAM 21:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yusef Khan

Hi, i'm new here so I dont no what happens. Characters like Vanessa Gold and Jodie Gold have got their own pages. I've created one for Yusef Khan following Wikipedia's guidelines by using a 'sandbox'. I think i've done it right. Oh... I dont no! Well anyway here it is User:Puddle11/Sandbox (have I linked this right?) does it look good, can I make it to a article? Well saying that... I dont no how to! What do I do know? Puddle11 (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Mario? –Anemone Projectors– 13:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do you try to keep covering yourself? Your cover ups suck (sorry but it's true lol) GSorby – Talk! 13:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't get time to pop in here much, but even I could tell that was Mario :) Stephenb (Talk) 13:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

huh? what? Puddle11 (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Rather obvious -.- GSorby – Talk! 16:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Puddle11/Mario, what are you playing at? –Anemone Projectors– 17:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Charcters to be split off

Should Greg Jessop be split off know as he has 10 references but i do have one objection to him being split off and that is that his storylines part arent to longAlso looking at Al Jenkins he only has seven references so why has he been split off? If you split people off at seven then Kim Fox could be split off too. As Kim has: 1) More storylines than him 2) More development than him £) She has 2 less references than him Either that or Al shouldn't have been split off. OMG!!!! I was looking at Carly Wicks and see how many she has got!!! 2 --MayhemMario (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Al and Carly were created before we had these lists so they weren't split off. I looked at Greg yesterday and knew someone would be asking this. He does have a fair few references but it's a bit short so I think we should wait for the 6-month mark and review him then. That's in April. I don't think 7 is a definitive number, I normally try for about 10 references first, though it kind of depends on the length of the article. And Kim still only has 5. –Anemone Projectors– 14:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply about Greg (as it's april) i dont think he has enough information for his own article maybe in another 2 months (if he is still there) and try and wait for soem reception. MayhemMario (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. But if he does get reception before then, we could probably discuss him then. Reception is really good to have. –Anemone Projectors– 19:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

sorry, i dont get what you mean by; Al and Carly were created before we had these lists so they weren't split off. But theyu are split off and that is why i'm saying that carly ahs been split off with 2 but kim has 5! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayhemMario (talk • contribs) 14:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Carly's article was created new, she wasn't included on a list back then as we didn't have the lists when she joined the series. See Special:PermanentLink/27290371. When Al joined we had lists of "minor" characters and he was listed there for a short time and the article was created with a few references, technically he wasn't split. Carly was created at a time when EVERY character, even those from just one episode, had an article. –Anemone Projectors– 14:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Classic example: Special:PermanentLink/87437393. Anyway, I'm just showing you that ths is the reason they don't have many references and aren't in the lists. Because until Glenda, all main characters had a new article and the lists were only for minor characters. So not good to compare those. I still don't think Greg should be split off just yet. –Anemone Projectors– 14:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

right it makes sense know!! I did say on the other page where i pasted the same question that the only objection i would give was that he didnt have many storylines! Okay, we will just wait until he gets a few more storylines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayhemMario (talk • contribs) 16:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Carly's looking a little better ref wise. ;)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 17:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you did a good job there :) I knew the sources would be available, it just needed someone to come along and look! There are plenty of others (articles needing sources) though –Anemone Projectors– 19:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

so is shirley she had 4 now she's got 10 – i think....--MayhemMario (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Shirley has 8 because one that you added was a duplicate and another was just saying that Shirley was involved in a storyline so I removed it – there wasn't any actual real-world information. But the rest was good. –Anemone Projectors– 14:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

late reply, but I did a lot of refs onto Zoe Slater and Jamie Mitchell. I also did some on Rainie Cross and Michael Moon. I am know working on List of EastEnders Characters 2008. Replying to original question, Greg Jessop hasnt had any more storylines since i asked the question in the first place so i dont think he should be split off just yet. Maybe after the wedding.--MayhemMario (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I should bring this up now with the events and all Rob Grayson shall we split him off? Go to my sandbox and see the article! It's got 18 refs but is bound to ahve more when he returns! MayhemMario (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realise you had a crystal ball, Mario! TBH I think he's fine to stay where he is. It's only a couple of episodes so there won't be much to add. It's nice that his section fills out the article with lots of nice references. A bit like Danny Mitchell did. I totally regret splitting him off. –Anemone Projectors– 09:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No. I think he was right to splt off it makes a good article. So why not? TBH i think we should have certain criteria to allow characters to be split off so then we (me) dont go asking all then time and we know if there eligible or not.MayhemMario (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

When did Danny Mitchell get split? I must have missed that discussion.GunGagdin ^Moan 11:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

there were 2 i think 1)right below us and 2) on eastenders 2010! MayhemMario (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw the one below but that looked inconclusive. We do need more stringent criteria for splitting, I agree.GunGagdin ^Moan 11:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

the thing with the willy dilly splitting off is that you never no if there good enough. Also help me out at Talk:List of EastEnders Characters (2011). Please! MayhemMario (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I split Danny off being WP:BOLD. –Anemone Projectors– 11:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

:D do you agree about a criteria? Also Talk:List of EastEnders Characters (2011). (a user has been arguing with me) MayhemMario (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just ignore that user, I dont take kindly to orders, so he can do one. As for criteria, it's difficult because actually wikipedia policy overrides wikiprojects, and policy says that an article can stand alone if notability is proven. As far as I am concerned, that doesnt mean it should stand alone in every instance though. But I struggle to know what to do/say in these instances, because who am I to say whether a character should get its own page if notability has been proven? Despite my personal opinions. I dont really like that Danny has been split for instance, but I certainly agree that he is notable enough to have his own page.GunGagdin ^Moan 11:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

i think you should have a checkilst i.e.

Character page on BBC webiste
Stoylines big enough
10 refs at least
A big amount of reception (at least)
Has appeared more than 6 months? MayhemMario (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Character page and storylines are not good criteria. Since the websites revamp they have yet to add many characters who used to have profiles. And storylines should be as short as possible. 10 refs also doesnt make sense, as it depends on the quality of material they discuss. Ten mention about the character drinking ale etc is not really establishing notabiliity. Reception being huge is not necessary. And the 6 months rule doesnt really wash, because, what about characters who have huge impact but are only there for a short period. Plus, your rules dont take past characters into consideration. There is less information on them avaialble on the net and by your standards many would be listified.GunGagdin ^Moan 11:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

yes i agree with you definetly but do you get what i mean about like a checkllist thing?

MayhemMario (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Past characters are unlikely to get more coverage and can probably stay as they are. I don't know how many refs is good but if we're going to count them, we should only count sources that are independent of the subject, and also not include DS spoilers that only confirm a date. I think reception is the most important thing, but again it depends. Rob's has a big impact in his short time, but I dunno, I like him not being splt. Does anyone think we should re-merge Danny? –Anemone Projectors– 12:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) i've also found anoher floor in the checklist thing. Some actor arent the chatty people and dont do many interviews (i.e. Ellen Thomas) and then agian some do (i.e. Stefan Booth) and also some actors who are Bobby Beale's age arent going to do interveiws. MayhemMario (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

My P.O. is that Danny is fine. I like him being split as if this tatetred criteria we do have fits him then he is a least fine. Also more refs can be found. MayhemMario (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont know if I agree with leaving all past characters as they are, the ones I plan to extend listed on my userpage are the exceptions due to their longevity and I never agreed with them being merged in the first place really. Most others I agree they should stay in lists. As for Danny being remerged, am not sure. I dont know if its worth it as it does satisfy notability, so no one would be able to delete.GunGagdin ^Moan 12:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

i have a lot of past characters i want to split off i.e. Dotty Cotton, Callum Monks, Brenda Boyle, Manda Best, Linda Clarke and etc..... MayhemMario (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? I'm surprised about Brenda and Linda. –Anemone Projectors– 12:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Oh yeah there are lots that can be expanded. I dunno, I was thinking of Joanne Francis lol and yeah there are some in lists that should be split off in future, like, I know there are some but I can only think of Jeff Healy right now. –Anemone Projectors– 12:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I really want Brenda to have her own article thought that will never happen as she got no refs! MayhemMario (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Joanne has her own article. Do u think she shouldnt then? As for Brenda. I am against her being given her own page.GunGagdin ^Moan 13:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No she's fine, but is there any potential for expansion? That's all I meant. –Anemone Projectors– 17:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of the ones I listed Dotty Cotton, Callum Monks, Manda Best, Linda Clarke are ones I would like to split off. But with Brenda she hasnt got any OOU so i think no to (i'll just keep dreaming....) MayhemMario (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi the discussion came to a end (kind off) so it's back, want to tell yuo about these articles, if we think there capable of being split off (judging by the fact hardly any characters are being split off lately), Rob Grayson and Dotty Cotton i ahve put in a sandbox they both look good easily past the shattered criteria :) MayhemMario (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Rob is too minor. I said this a while ago, I know Rainie was split off but she's been back and forth for years. I'm all for Dotty though GSorby – Talk! 22:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree about Dotty. Not that notable enough – number of refs doesn't verify notability too. What did she really do that had everyone talking?Rain the 1 ^BAM 22:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, I don't think any of them need to be split off. And what does "judging by the fact hardly any characters are being split off lately" mean? –Anemone Projectors– 00:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi again your probably say no, but here is another one I did earlier, Amanda Best but I still think she should re-think about Dotty. MayhemMario (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's probably not worth it. I think the episode ratings is just incidental and not related to the fact that Manda was arriving or departing. If you have anything in your sandboxes that isn't in articles, you should add it. –Anemone Projectors– 23:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There is more that could be added to Manda just by looking in The Free Libary alone- [2] [3] [4] [5] – [6]and[7] That is just what I found with a quick scan, there are loads. So maybe when more info is added.Rain the 1 ^BAM 23:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thing with Manda is we tried so hard to split her off before and the sources weren't there. –Anemone Projectors– 00:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well if they are added, plus the rest from the libary. Then look in the Daily Mail archive which always gets something if Jaci Stephen disliked them. Then see how it looks, i'd think most would agree then.Rain the 1 ^BAM 00:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

added sources. looks really good now! what do you think? MayhemMario (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you update the article instead? Then others can clean up if necessary and we can properly assess the situation. –Anemone Projectors– 17:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

what do you think now?? MayhemMario (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the sourcing problems need to be fixed first. A few things need citations, and one quote isn't in its source. Also one dead link but not much we can do about it. –Anemone Projectors– 10:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

i'll take a look. MayhemMario (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool. IMDB's not really considered a reliable source, but if she was in 49 episodes, it would be better to say that than "almost 50". –Anemone Projectors– 10:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

some of them i cant find, but is she ready yet? MayhemMario (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael Moon

I'd like to propose splitting off Michael Moon. He's been in the series for getting on to 6 months (longer if we count the break) and according to reports, has a big storyline coming up. I've created a draft to which I have added information that isn't currently in the list entry. See User:AnemoneProjectors/Michael Moon (EastEnders) and let me know your thoughts. –Anemone Projectors– 16:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

go for it.GunGagdin ^Moan 20:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Done :) –Anemone Projectors– 21:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Moon family mixup

As we know, this is totally messed up. Reports have said that Eddie is Alfie's uncle, even David Essex has said that. Michael was introduced as Alfie's cousin. That makes sense apart from the fact that Nana's initial story said she only had one son, Alfie's father. We said that Nana's backstory was retconned. Michael's profile on the BBC website seems to agree to an extent, calling Nana his grandmother, but Alfie is listed as his second cousin, not his cousin. Eddie's profile has just gone live (http://www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders/characters/eddie-moon.shtml) and it says that Nana was his aunt! But also says that Alfie is his second cousin, but should say first cousin once removed, if Nana was his aunt. What are we going to do? This currently affects articles on Alfie, Nana, Eddie, Michael, Tyler and Anthony. –Anemone Projectors– 16:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Go by what the EE website says? Although they don't seem to know who is related to who either. In that recent EE revealed half the cast didn't know who their characters were related too – so they are just as unreliable. lolRain the 1 ^BAM 16:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We can't by the the EE site because Michael's profile and Eddie's profile contradict each other. In fact it says Eddie is Alfie's father now! http://www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders/characters/alfie-moon.shtml –Anemone Projectors– 16:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I personally think we should go by all the sources that say Eddie is Alfie's uncle, and leave Eddie as Nana's second son, going with the retcon theory. But it's also possible that Alfie would call his father's cousin "Uncle". –Anemone Projectors– 16:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nana is missing from Eddie's infobox, I think that's a good idea, as I did say we should separate old and new Moons due to the confusion. –Anemone Projectors– 16:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah go by that then and leave her out. Haha, what is wrong with the EE website team, they don't know what they are going on about.Rain the 1 ^BAM 17:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've spoken to Ryan Love from Digital Spy about it over Twitter, he seems as confused as I was! I wanted to see if he or someone from DS could speak to EE and find out how Eddie and Michael are really related to Nana and Alfie! –Anemone Projectors– 17:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll make a fuss about it in a thread and maybe they will do a soap scoop.Rain the 1 ^BAM 17:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully DS will get to the bottom of it, but in the meantime, couldn't we give the discrepancy a single-sentence mention in the prose? Eg. 'Essex and [sources] described Eddie as Alfie's uncle, though the series' official website lists them as second cousins.' – and alter as appropriate for whatever relationship is being described. Saves trying to pick which is "right". Frickative 17:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Could do, and we could just put the mixed up ones as "other relatives" in the infobox. But the website have apparently put "second cousin" when they mean "first cousin once removed". –Anemone Projectors– 17:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

RIGHT! Alfie just said Eddie's granddad is Alfie's granddad's brother. So Alfie and Michael are not cousins. –Anemone Projectors– 19:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorted! Alfie and Eddie are second cousins, and Alfie and Michael are second cousins once removed. –Anemone Projectors– 19:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

;-) –Anemone Projectors– 19:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Home section in infobox

Per an edit summary made by Frickative recently, I agree that this parameter in the infobox is essentially a little pointless because it only focuses on the recent, and if we were to make it focus on a character's entire duration, there would be tens of addresses for some characters, like Sam Mitchell for example, and especially if we include all her abroad abodes. I propose it should be deleted from the infobox.GunGagdin ^Moan 15:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You know what – I totally agree. I get tired of watching IP's updating this peice of info, like they are making some holy contrib. It is just totally in-uinverse and half the time pointless. How does it aid the general reader.Rain the 1 ^BAM 16:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the thing, it doesn't. Agreed. GSorby – Talk! 17:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this a proposal to remove the parameter from the EE articles or all articles? If it's all, then the discussion should be on the infobox template talk page. For what it's worth, I oppose removing it from all articles. - JuneGloom Talk 17:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree though with Fatboy (EastEnders) I've listed them all, but he only has a few. Yes, we should remove it. I've been thinking it for ages, in fact I think it was proposed once before. AWB can remove it from pages for me but will take some time. –Anemone Projectors– 18:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually we could probably edit the template so that home doesn't show up if the series name is EastEnders. –Anemone Projectors– 20:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

We can, I just checked. Then it will disappear instantly, and I can use AWB to remove the home field afterwards. Another reason I think it should be delete is that when a character leaves the series and goes to France, for example, we change it to France, but they never lived in France at all while they were in the series, so it's completely unrepresentitive. It's in-universe information based on the latest episodes, not the whole time. –Anemone Projectors– 20:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we should keep it as were just going to get hours after hours of vandalism trying to get it back adding uneccesrary dates, i would just keep it.Mayhem Mario 13:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

As can probably be taken as given, I definitely think it should go. It's in-universe, and devoid of context or meaning to anyone but fans. Important moves can be mentioned in the prose. Here's the original discussion. Frickative 13:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to shock you all and agree with this. Never liked the parameter, would be happy to see it disappear from the template altogether. Similarly with 'occupation'. There are so many needless edits messing with these two parameters, and what do they really contribute? If they were that important they would be mentioned somewhere in the body of the article. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 13:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

AP I think removing it from the template for eastenders articles sounds best. People will try to reinclude the field it is true, but it wont make any difference if the template refuses to show it.GunGagdin ^Moan 18:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Home is stupid because it's non-defining and impossible to reference, gets removed when people move and is generally unrepresentitive. I wouldn't remove it from the template altogether because {{infobox soap character}} uses it. I don't think occupation should be removed either as it can be defining, and also we try not to include non-notable jobs anyway. But everyone seems to agree so I will edit the template so that it won't appear in EastEnders articles. Expect complaints and questions! –Anemone Projectors– 18:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's now gone from EastEnders pages. –Anemone Projectors– 13:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I think we could leave it in infoboxes as a) it's not doing any harm as it won't display and b) we may decide to reinstate it at some point. –Anemone Projectors– 01:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is a bit pointless having this home template but raintheone and ohh fruity i saw your comments and although ye say it was pointless with editors updating it all the time i fell ye wrong and are only saying that cause it makes ye mad cause ye want to do it yourselves and it makes ye jealous!!!!!!, please dont attack other users like that, because all contributions are important to wikipedia and everyone has a right to edit, its not all about ye 2 and that other lad (AnemoneProjectors) who always reverts my edits, everyone has the same rights here ,now get over yourselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 86.43.185.250 (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Relatives of characters

There seems to be this strange rule in which family members of characters are only being mentioned if they have been directly involved with them, have interacted with them onscreen and have appeared onscreen themselves. I have constantly tried adding the remaining relatives as I believe that all Aunts, Uncles, Grandparents, Nieces, Nephews etc. should be recorded regardless of whether or not they have interacted with the character. It seems inconsistent and ridiculous to mention some but not all and that is why I have been amending them. I hope that other contributors to this page will agree with me and that the editors will reconsider and allow the other family members to be recorded. 82.38.40.189 (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really, only notable family should be noted. GSorby – Talk! 18:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If two characters are related but don't have a notable family relationship then it's not worth listing them. This is especially true for characters who never appeared, but is also true for family members who never appeared at the same time. And even sometimes characters who do appear at the same time. EastEnders family trees are so complicated. For example, Bianca's aunt is Suzy Branning, but have they ever spoken on screen? –Anemone Projectors– 00:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite. The infobox shouldn't be a family tree. It's intended to impart vital information, things that are essential to understanding the characters. So while it's an essential facet of James Branning's character that he's the son of Ronnie and Jack, it would be excessively in-universe to list Sonia and Robbie as his cousins etc. One workable rule of thumb to consider is, 'Would this relationship be mentioned in the prose of an ideal article?'. If not, it's probably not important enough to weigh the ibox down with either. Frickative 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I do think it gets complicated sometimes. For example James Branning has several half siblings – Amy Mitchell, Richard Mitchell and Penny Branning, but since he only lived a day, he ever even met them. And only one was living in Walford. Then there are some aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces. And should we still list parents, children, and siblings even if they never appeared? I felt we should as they're direct relatives, but are they still important? –Anemone Projectors– 01:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I think direct relatives that haven't appeared is an awkward one, because it's often just a name devoid of context. If the relationship can be discussed in the prose, then listing them is likely justified (for instance, it seems important to know that Billy's parents left him to grow up in an abusive care-home). If there's nothing at all to say, apart from 'X had a sister called Y (who was so unimportant they're not mentioned anywhere else in this article)', it's perhaps a bit dubious. Frickative 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Manda Best & Dotty Cotton

Wanted to bring it up again, what do you think of User:MayhemMario/sandbox 3? It's for Manda Best and has got 17 references (1 dead). I know this sounds pushy but I REALY want to create this article by mysef I just need some backing up. I think we can use the promo pic of Manda to show her hippy clothes as mentioned in the characterization section. There are a few citiation needed tags, but one thing,ref name="interview""Josie Lawrence on joining EastEnders". BBC Online. 4 March 2009. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)ref, I dont think it was a real reference,as 1) it has no URL 2) I've looked EVERYWHERE for it and havent found it anywhere. What do you think?Mayhem Mario 16:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to make a few comments on what you said. Firstly you wouldn't be creating it yourself because the list entry was created long before you came along so it would be other people's edits that started it, and a redirect already exists as well. The BBC interview reference's url is http://www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders/characters_cast/interviews/interview_josie_l.shtml but you removed it today in your edits (what a bizarre thing to do and then claim it has no url). The interview disappeared when they redid the website before the 25th anniversary. It is archived here. It's even archived in the current list entry. You also removed this reference: Fletcher, Alex (14 January 2009). "Comic Josie Lawrence joins 'EastEnders'". Digital Spy. Retrieved 1 July 2009. - I'm wondering if the majority of your userspace draft has been imported into the list entry anyway. –Anemone Projectors– 16:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay whoops! I didnt realize about the URL thingy. About the ref, no i didnt it's the same one as it is already there. Just look at the References (Number 2) (Lol) So can she be split off?Mayhem Mario 18:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's another one i've been doing, User:MayhemMario/sandbox2 for Dotty Cotton. I havent finished the lead, though that can be easily done. The storyline probably, most definetly needing cutting down but other than that 17 references, all working (no cituation needed tags), everyhtings fine. What do you think?Mayhem Mario 18:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Dotty's now got 19 references, and i've finished the lead. Juts want to say! The articles both look really good, but i need your opinion first.Mayhem Mario 16:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really bothered either way, but there's no room for expansion beyond what you've done, so that's it forever. As long as histories are merged appropriately. Which I can do. Would be good if I could take the histories from the list entries as well but that's far too complicated. I still want to reverse my split of Danny Mitchell though. Which makes me think I'll want the same for these short-term-semi-regular-and-a-bit-minor characters too. So I'm leaning more towards not splitting them. –Anemone Projectors– 16:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

They both have 19 references now! What does, As long as histories are merged appropriately. Which I can do. Would be good if I could take the histories from the list entries as well but that's far too complicated. Keep Danny where he is.Mayhem Mario 17:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've spent ages on them, and there ALL liable to be split off. They've got more sources than many other characters, there quite a lot of reception and there all round good articles.Mayhem Mario 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It means people's edits have to be attributed. The articles have been created and redirected several times before so both already have page histories. I've edited at least one of your userspace drafts, so it'll be a case of merging them fully rather than just copying and pasting content. Like I said, I'm not really bothered either way (list or separate). –Anemone Projectors– 16:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

SEPERATE! (lol) If you dont mind, can you do the splitting off part, not to good at that (even though in my first edit i said i wanted to) .Mayhem Mario 17:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah if you want to I can do it. Shall we wait for a few more people to comment? –Anemone Projectors– 17:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Your call, i dont mind just going ahead but if you think so, i'll wait.Mayhem Mario 18:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Though 1 thing, i know this sounds selfish... but can I put down on my userpage (if or when the articles are cretaed) that I created thses articles? I just spent a lot of time on them, that's all.Mayhem Mario 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Good Lord. Just split. Im so bored of this discussion and if they pass notability policy criteria then what the hell. And at least Mario can then move on from this :) GunGagdin^Moan 19:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Christ change the record :-) If it passes notability, do it. GSorby – Talk! 19:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've done Manda. Dotty will be more complicated as Mario used the same sandbox for two other characters, so I'll have to delete it, then restore part of it, then move it, then merge it. –Anemone Projectors– 20:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that either should be split off, but Manda makes a better candidate than Dotty. - JuneGloom Talk 20:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Not Dotty – but nice to see Manda has. Like I said before Mario – there are more sources out there.Rain the 1 ^BAM 23:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What about now? Dotty's got 30 sources. Split or not? Thanks, Rain, you made me look!Mayhem Mario 19:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Can Walford Web polls be considered reliable sources? We already know that Lowculture isn't considered a RS, and that should be removed. I know there are loads of sources but she's still a minor character who will never return and there isn't that much text, she'd still fit in well to the list. –Anemone Projectors– 19:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't think we should include the ratings because it's not related to Dotty's departure, yet including it makes it seem like that many people tuned in to watch her leave. Also, we shouldn't use overnight ratings. –Anemone Projectors– 19:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Dotty passes the notibnility by a LONG way. She should be split off. Mayhem Mario 20:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And I don't see the point in saying "this person said this and so did this person". And we shouldn't count sources for the plot, if you're going to keep doing that. Plot doesn't need to be sourced. –Anemone Projectors– 19:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I just went and did it, sorry but I was getting annoyed, AP please may you reinstate the image, ta GSorby – Talk! 19:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Never mind I got reverted. GSorby – Talk! 20:00,

i reverted it, you took all the info form the article on the list, not form my sandbox, the lsit is REALLY outdated. Also the image (if you would) can it be a picture of the promo shot to show her pigtails? Mayhem Mario 21:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC) 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You failed to understand that I have to do a history merge, and a complicated one at that, by deleting Mario's sandbox, then restoring only the edits relating to Dotty, and then moving it and then restoring the original page history. Now I have to stop doing what I'm doing and fix it. –Anemone Projectors– 20:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And also, you did it BEFORE I had finished cleaning up Mario's sandbox!!! –Anemone Projectors– 20:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And please note that when creating a short blurb in a list, it still needs to be fully referenced. I'll leave that to you guys who are doing them. –Anemone Projectors– 20:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Greg Jessop

Okay everyone, I've started to do a draft to split off Greg. Take a look at User:GSorby/Greg Jessop and tell me what you think. I don't have any reception yet but if you could find, please do add it! :-) GSorby – Talk! 20:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not bad. I removed a paragraph as it was mostly about Max and Tanya and part of it was already mentioned further up, but I may have removed too much, but you can put it back if you want, but with the original quote :-) I'm not sure how much longer Greg will be around, I feel he's not that major, characterwise, but if Dotty can have an article......... By the way I'm working on Eddie Moon in my userspace (User:AnemoneProjectors/Eddie Moon). –Anemone Projectors– 21:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoa AP, Eddie has his own article already! 19 refs! Wow I'm surprised, do it now imo ;-) GSorby – Talk! 21:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There are 21 refs, but there should still be more to add. Even though Eddie may only be around until August, I'd love to see him split off. I hadn't considered Greg for splitting off, I always thought that Julie or Yusef would be next, as Greg doesn't seem to do a lot. But yeah, Greg's a candidate. I must remember to work on that baby swap storyline article as well. –Anemone Projectors– 21:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I say I.M.O no to both of them, as 1) in article its good to have reception (aimed at Greg Jessop) and 2) Eddie's only been in it for a couple of days, so I would wait for another month untill his storylines are bigger. Also I definetly agree with AP, when he says about Yusef Khan, though not about Julie yet, as she has no reception. Mayhem Mario 11:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC) 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Yusef should be the next to split off, and Greg when we get some reception, and Eddie in a while. I'd like to see Julie split but there's no enough info. –Anemone Projectors– 10:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As were all putting are ideas forward, User:MayhemMario/sandbox:Tracey (EastEnders), i've no where near finished and all, just letting you know, that im doing it. I also think Afia should be split off, though no where near enough sources. Mayhem Mario 15:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC) 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm 100000000% against Tracey being split off, regardless of how many sources she gets. She only makes minor appearances apart from being kidnapped by Sam and having sex with Sean. Her list entry is sufficient. She's not even a recurring character, she's an EXTRA!!! If you have anything to add, add it to the article please, not to a draft. Afia has about three sources. Technically "This is Fernandes second role in EastEnders, her first being a schoolgirl in 1993" isn't about Afia, and sources to the EastEnders website are primary sources which don't count towards notability. And I personally don't count storyline references either, so she basically has one. –Anemone Projectors– 15:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, AP, about Afia and everything, will do about Tracey. Mayhem Mario 16:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC) 18 June 2011 (UTC)

2 things

Just wondered where the name of Adam Best's father (Gordon) came from? I see it was added in this edit but then reverted by AP, but it seems to have snuck back into his and Manda's articles. I don't recall it ever being mentioned in the show and it's not on either of their profiles on the official website. Also, I was wondering how come you're allowed to use promotional images of the characters in articles now? And if you are allowed, why you're still using screenshots for the majority. 86.138.34.27 (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Because that majority don't have promotional images for their arrival. GSorby – Talk! 20:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

So are you allowed to used copyrighted images now or is it some loophole? Most of the characters do have promo images taken for their arrivals. 86.138.34.27 (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

We do try to keep them low. Remember the rationale has to reflect the image which can be difficult. GSorby – Talk! 23:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The screenshot is considered better, but that is copyrighted too, just like the promo shot. Sometimes and certainly in the case of Vanessa Gold – they help to illustrate the subject of the article better.. Though there has to be suffient information in the text to justify it, which there is in that case. Aslong as a fairuse rationale can hold it's own – there should be no issue. But were not going to change every image to promo for each and every character if that is what you mean.Rain the 1 ^BAM 23:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And if Gordon has been sneaked back in, please remove him, I'm pretty sure he was never mentioned. –Anemone Projectors– 13:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed split of Yusef Khan

Hello everyone. Haven;t heard of quite a few of you lately. Well, anyway, I wanted to let you know, I've been working on a draft of Yusef Khan in my userspace. Have a look an tell me what you all think. I definitely think he's eligible. Have a good evening, GSorby – Talk! 19:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Support but remove the first comma first! –Anemone Projectors– 13:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Done that, waiting for more opinions :-) GSorby – Talk! 13:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Go for it.GunGagdin ^Moan 15:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought that was a no when that came up on my watchlist! Things like that tend to happen to me once I've done the deed. Anyway I've

Done that. GSorby – Talk! 15:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Great work. Lovely to see you and Mario doing all this article building.GunGagdin ^Moan 15:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad I'm being useful for a change, images were my only thing last year. GSorby – Talk! 16:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Images are still very useful, especially as I have lost capability to capture them from live TV now. So your image contributions are very valuable.GunGagdin ^Moan 16:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I do still enjoy uploading image. What happened to yours? Did you upgrade? GSorby – Talk! 16:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I had a PVR that allowed you to take caps. It broke and I got a new PVR, which was an upgrade, but it doesnt allow me to take caps and transfer them to my PC anymore. I could still take caps from online streaming if I wanted, but the quality isnt as good. Plus yours seem to be in HD anyway, so they look better quality than mine as I dodnt have HD. After years of having done it, im happy to have handed the image uploading title over to you to be honest! It's quite a challenge getting the right shot and can be tiresome! You might start to feel that soon :) Or maybe, if we start using promos, it will negate the need for so much screen capping?! GunGagdin^Moan 16:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think we should use promos for ALL characters, but many people are against it. Mayhem Mario 16:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, to be honest I am not opposed to that either, but not all of them have promos. Older character promos are very difficult to come by, and if you find them they tend to be on ebay with signatires scribbled over them. We used to use promos from cast cards. We had hundreds. They all got deleted and we got reprimanded. We were told that screenshots were the only reasonable use of fairuse in character pages because there were no photographer copyright theft issues. With screenshots, altho the BBC owns the image, as the still is being created from film, their use is easier to justify. So we spent years getting caps. This might be changing, but I'd be tentative about it, because unless you can justify use with a rationale, I can see them getting deleted again.GunGagdin ^Moan 16:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

When I'm in a good mood I'll go onto iPlayer and start capping, but usually, I'll see a good pose during the programme, so then I just go back at the end and cap that. Promos, imo, are just a lazy, tacky way to do pictures. They're not my cup of tea. GSorby – Talk! 16:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we get one for Julie Perkins now? Yusef,Grace's and Michales pics have gone, thanks. Mayhem Mario 16:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:NFLISTS still applies to Julie. –Anemone Projectors– 14:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll get Julie split off soon, she's now on my list. GSorby – Talk! 14:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Is she even splittable? –Anemone Projectors– 14:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to see what reception and dev I can find. Not looking good to be honest. GSorby – Talk! 14:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I always say reception is the key! My time is now up for today :-( –Anemone Projectors– 14:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)