Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders/Archive 17

In-universe information
In-universe information
Stepfather	Phil Mitchell (1995–1999)
Stepmother	Laura Beale (2001–2004); Jane Beale (2007–2011)
Husband	Ricky Butcher (1997–2000, 2010–2013)
Wife	Cindy Williams (1989–1997); Melanie Healy (1999–2000); Laura Dunn (2001–2004) ; Jane Collins (2007–2011, 2015–)

Bianca Jackson
Bianca Jackson
EastEnders character
Portrayed by	Kevin Curran (2003–2007); Alex Francis (2007–2012); Rory Stroud (2013–2014); Eliot Carrington (2014–); Eva Brittin-Snell (1993–1996); Casey Anne Rothery; (1996–2004); Melissa Suffield (2004–2010); Hetti Bywater (2012–2015)
Duration	1990–1993, 1995–1996, 1999–2000, 2002–2005, 2009–2010, 2016
Spin-off; appearances	EastEnders: E20 (2010–11); "East Street" (2010)
Stepfather	Phil Mitchell (1995–1999)
In-universe information
Stepfather	Phil Mitchell (1995–1999)
Stepmother	Laura Beale (2001–2004); Jane Beale (2007–2011)
Husband	Ricky Butcher (1997–2000, 2010–2013)
Wife	Cindy Williams (1989–1997); Melanie Healy (1999–2000); Laura Dunn (2001–2004) ; Jane Collins (2007–2011, 2015–)

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 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

AJ Ahmed/Joey Branning

AJ and Joey have now been in the show for 6 months+. I have worked on a page for AJ and believe it is ready to go into mainspace. Have a look here and see what you think. I was going to work on Joey but I honestly have no idea where to start. I have a list of sources here but there are many many more, including his award win. Joey is definitely good for a stand-alone article. Would anyone be willing to work on it? Alice might as well, but there's probably not as much out there as for Joey (there was a recent Metro interview though). But if anyone wants to work on her it would be great. I'd like to nominate AJ for DYK but at the moment I think it's only a 4x expansion, not a 5x. I've been unable to find anyone commenting on how well cast he is, since Sharma and Ganatra look like brothers anyway, anyone seen anything about that? –anemone projectors– 09:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the AJ article looks great AP, I think it should definately go live. Bleaney (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's one of my best. I just wanted it to be a bit longer, as there has got to be something out there mentioning the similarity between the actors. Also, I haven't worked out a DYK yet. I'll probably do it tomorrow as I don't have time now tonight. On another note, I think David Witts is eligible for his own article now because of his award win, but I was having trouble finding his background information. Any takers? –anemone projectors– 22:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The AJ page is great AP, just a pointer though, in the infobox the duration of his marriage should be (2004-12) as he stated in an episode that he'd received his decree absolute. I'll have a scout for sources for Joey, but they are a little sparse. Alex250P (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the infobox, but on 27 December he got his decree nisi, not his decree absolute, so it's not a legal divorce yet. Therefore the divorce will be finalised this year (after 6 weeks). Sources for Joey are far from sparse! There are too many! –anemone projectors– 20:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Also I forgot, GSorby's already working on Alice. Yay! –anemone projectors– 22:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you guys reckon on my Alice Branning draft? Ready to go? George^Ping! 13:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Storylines need updating from the current list entry (update done by me recently). There are a few things I'd change like instead of saying "it was later announced", say when it was announced, and the quote "meetings between Derek and his daughter Alice are often short and painfully awkward" appears to be about the relationship between Derek and Alice, rather than reception of the character. Same with the previous Tony Stewart quote. I have only skimmed over the article though. –anemone projectors– 21:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Infobox occupations

To save clutter, should we remove years from the occuaptions? Also, maybe we should think about remove some of the less-notable jobs some characters have had. Look at Bianca Jackson for example. Two of her jobs she's done twice, one has ended but the year hasn't been removed, and several aren't defining of her character like the fact we've seen her work in the salon a couple of times, but she wasn't even employed... At least removing years would remove clutter. And for Billy Mitchell (EastEnders) we don't even have years for some of his older jobs! –anemone projectors– 09:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ive never really got the obsession that some editors have of adding every single half-a-days job to a characters infobox. Less is more in this instance I feel. Bleaney (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you think about removing durations for jobs? –anemone projectors– 16:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Definately. What purpose does it serve? Bleaney (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that if a job is defining, we don't need to say when they had it. And for people like Bianca, it would reduce the clutter. It would also reduce the width of the infoboxes we have forced to be wider using nowrap. –anemone projectors– 09:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Anybody else with an opinion? Bleaney (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I agree, remove the durations, too much clutter. I like occupations, but lets only keep the major ones. — M.Mario (T/C) 14:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree remove durations, they aren't that bad on some characters but it looks terrible when it is for example: (1999-2004, 2005, 2007-08, 2010, 2012) etc. Alex250P (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, remove it. To be honest, what does it matter how long they do a job for? If they have had numerous jobs then adding the durations just clogs up the infobox even more. It's a bit like adding relatives that they're never going to have any scenes with! What's the point?--5 albert square (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks conclusive then - we remove the years! –anemone projectors– 11:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Actors

I know we don't include actors within our scope, but project members do work on actor articles, so I thought I'd let you all know that these three videos - or at least the first one, as I haven't watched the other two yet - have info on how some of the cast got into acting, where they studied etc. So for those interested, these might be helpful. I've already updated Chucky Venn. –anemone projectors– 16:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Article importance

I was just looking at stuff and noticed that Poppy Meadow was tagged as "low-importance" for this Project. I changed it to "mid", but it's occurred to me that really, do we need importance at all? Many Projects don't include it (including Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Assessment), and it's a pretty arbitrary classification that we give to characters. Usuaully, top importance stuff is for subjects known throughout the world, or that have an international impact. Would anyone really object if it was gone? I'd be happy to do the work to remove it. –anemone projectors– 11:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Axe it.GunGagdin ^Moan 14:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yay! We don't use it, I might as well just be bold and do it. –anemone projectors– 15:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to go through the talk pages to remove the importance= part, I just had to remove the field from the original template, so it no longer appears. –anemone projectors– 16:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the categories! They're all categorised. I'll delete them :-) –anemone projectors– 16:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

News @ Midnight

@DigitalSpy says: "#EastEnders fans! There's some news going live at midnight that you'll (probably) be happy to read..." David Wicks' return (finally) announced or (maybe) Peggy? Whatever, beware! Stephenb (Talk) 14:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I won't see what it is until around 9am tomorrow! :( But I'm sure our list of characters will be the first place I see it! –anemone projectors– 14:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

'twas Peggy! Useful BBC link: [1] Someone has already added it to the List. Stephenb (Talk) 06:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic news. I didn't expect it to be Peggy, because Barbara Windsor recently insisted she wasn't ready to come back! –anemone projectors– 07:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Just one episode makes more sense though :) –anemone projectors– 08:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Chrissie Watts & Jake Moon

Hi there. While I was tidying some older articles, I noticed that the storylines sections of both the Chrissie Watts and Jake Moon articles do not state how the characters met or began a relationship with each other. It might seem like a trivial point but it makes both of the storylines sections in these articles seem quite disjointed. I can't actually remember how these 2 got together, otherwise i'd add it myself. But if someone does remember, could they add it? It only need be a sentence or so. Bleaney (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? Bleaney (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah. No idea, sorry. –anemone projectors– 17:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Introducer Dates

Good evening! Long time since I've posted here. Since I've been editing here, I've been bold and removed years from producers of when they introduced a character. For example, if Bryan Kirkwood introduced Michael as a guest in 2010 and brought him back as a regular back in 2011, it would read Introduced by Bryan Kirkwood (2010, 2011), I removed the 2011 and would say in the edit summary that Producers only introduce a new character once. These infoboxes get awfully cluttered so does anyone think this a bad move I make? George^Ping! 18:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah you're right to remove the 2011 in that example. I'm a bit confused though. –anemone projectors– 22:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, in my view you can only be introduced by a producer once. Bleaney (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Bobby Beale

Hey all. I've started working on a draft for Bobby Beale which is located here. Does anybody have any opinions on my draft? Would you say it's ready to be split? As you can see, I've exhausted every source possible but if anybody has any mags or other sources that relate to Bobby, please pop them on the talk page; would be most appreciated. Bobby is quite a long running character and in my opinion, I think he's eligible for his own article so what are your thoughts? Cheers. George Sorby 20:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me, happy to split! Bleaney (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. Wait for him to grow up and get a significant storyline of his own. - JuneGloom Talk 22:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Has Tiffany been in any significant storylines of her own? She has her own article... and the character has been in EastEnders for a much shorter time. Bleaney (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreeing with Bleaney on the Tiffany point. George Sorby 22:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

What an obscure choice for an article. He never does anything. If there were more information - a good sized development section then I doubt no one would have any issues. We can just pretend Bleaney did not say "Tiffany has an article".Rain the 1 23:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think Tiffany should be in a list too. Just because she has an article doesn't mean Bobby should have one. Imagine for a moment that Tiffany didn't have her own article, what would your reason be for splitting Bobby then? - JuneGloom Talk 00:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh I know, I know theres no excuse in saying a weak article should allow another... It just bugs me that on here at least Tiffany is treated by some like she's an essential cast member, whereas Bobby doesn't, and has a bit more storyline development and history in the soap (remember when Gary Hobbs thought he was his?). I think George has put together what he had to work with very well, and its much better sourced than a lot of the character articles we have. But maybe we should wait. Bleaney (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts: The draft for Bobby looks good but should be used to bulk out his list entry as there's not that much real-world information, especially if every source has been exhausted. I don't know if there's anything in the soap magazines but I really doubt it - I certainly haven't seen anything in the year or two I've been reading them. As for Tiffany, there might be more information about her but then again there might not. If her article can't be significantly expanded, then we should probably merge her to a list entry. I'm sure there are more award nominations to add for her though. Those alone might make the character particularly notable. –anemone projectors– 19:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Alice Branning

Done my draft...located here. Thoughts? George Sorby 21:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a good start, but I'm sure there is plenty more info out there. I see nothing about the Michael/Janine storyline. - JuneGloom Talk 23:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as I said on the draft's talk page, there's loads out there about the Janine and Michael stuff, and her kleptomania. –anemone projectors– 21:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh and I'll be happy to provide the refs for the episodes... but if you know the dates it'll be loads easier (save me reading through my episode notes!). I keep a list of filled out episode refs for easy access! :-) –anemone projectors– 21:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sharongate

Hi guys. Having just done some work on the Sharongate article, it occurred to me that really this article could need a bit of updating, specifically in light of Sharon's most recent return, and her restarting a relationship with Phil. I know that the term 'Sharongate' specifically refers to the Grant/Sharon/Phil love triangle, but the article expands quite a lot on Sharon's various tribulations with both Mitchell brothers. Surely as Sharon getting back together with Phil in 2013 effectively restarts a storyline that started over 20 years ago, it should be referenced in the Sharongate article? Anyway... does anyone fancy having a go? Bleaney (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning it, but as it's not part of the actual "Sharongate" storyline, I don't think we need to go too deeply into detail. Until Grant comes back, of course ;-) –anemone projectors– 11:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well feel free AP... :) Bleaney (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

And you :-) –anemone projectors– 15:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Carter family tree

I made a tree for the family. Is is accurate to the best of our knowledge? –anemone projectors– 09:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it really worthwhile putting the two 'unknowns' at the top of the tree? Apart from that, it looks fine. Bruno Russell (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought it best to show the parents at the top rather than just a flat line, even though their names are not known. I only really made it for use in the families category, rather than some article. That seems to be how most EE family trees are used on Wikipedia. –anemone projectors– 20:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Lucas Johnson serial killing storyline

I think there should be a page on the storyline of the serial killings of Lucas Johnson. What do you think? Bruno Russell (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be covered by the character's page, rather than given its own article. It's all about Lucas so can all be covered there. I don't recall that much information at the time that could be used. –anemone projectors– 20:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sonia

Reliable sources (more so than the Mirror) such as [2] [3] are treating Sonia's return as unconfirmed reports for now, and there has certainly been no announcement made. It's worth mentioning at Sonia Fowler as reported, but I think it should not be listed in infoboxes, List of Eastenders characters etc. as fact until it is confirmed. U-Mos (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Another case of David Wicks? The BBC waited too long to announce that one. "They are finalising details" tells me that they will announce the return once the details are finalised. –anemone projectors– 11:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Way too early for us to confirm this, we are an encyclopedia not an entertainment website. I say we should wait for the BBC. - Bleaney (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right, the details may never be finalised as it could all go wrong and she might not return. –anemone projectors– 15:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I really think in general we should always wait for BBC confirmation of a character arrival/return/departure. The only exceptional circumstances should be situations where the BBC has practically stated that it is keeping something secret (like when David and Simon Wicks returned for Pat's death). I don't we think waited too long for David's most recent reappearance... we did what an encyclopedia should do and waited on official confirmation from the BBC, while making reference to the rumours in the characters's article. Bleaney (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the information given in the source. Natalie Cassidy might go on the radio or TV tomorrow and say "I am definitely coming back". But in general we should wait for the official announcement - but the source doesn't have to be the BBC because all the news sites reveal these things at the same moment the BBC does. –anemone projectors– 21:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't have to be the BBC source that's used, but the BBC should have confirmed it. Yes, for instance if Danny Dyer announced on his official twitter feed that he had joined EE I guess we could use it, but TBH I cant think of any occasion where an actor has announced their joining EE before the BBC announces it... - Bleaney (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I was just using it as an example, but very unlikely. But it has happened... I believe Tanya Franks' website confirmed one of Rainie's returns before anyone else. –anemone projectors– 22:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Episode numbers

Hi everyone. I hope you are all well. I've now made live the article on AJ Ahmed. I added the number of his first episode to the infobox, even though we haven't done it before. Some Corrie characters have this though (though it seems this habit stopped in 2011). I think it's a really good idea though. And I'm also thinking of places where EastEnders is shown with a delay of a few weeks, for example, in South Africa, they will today be watching the episode we saw on 9 September, and over at BBC Nordic, they're currently watching the episodes we saw on 8 and 9 August, so for them, Sadie Young's first appearance is today. What are people's thoughts on this? The only time it might cause a problem is with double episodes that look like one episode of twice the length. –anemone projectors– 12:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In the infobox, would it be instead of a first appearance date, or as well as? Bleaney (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As well as, like I did in AJ Ahmed. –anemone projectors– 20:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I like it! - Bleaney (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yay :-) I don't think we can do this for all the characters, but recent ones for sure. –anemone projectors– 08:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Mick Carter (Danny Dyer's character)

Just wondering....... I've been working on User:AnemoneProjectors/Mick Carter since the day this was announced, as I just knew there would be a lot to say. I'm still trawling the net for sources, but I wondered if anyone thinks it could go live before he's even appeared? After all, Twelfth Doctor exists, and Mick definitely passes GNG. –anemone projectors– 13:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Having said that, I'd probably like to wait for closer to the time so a DYK can go on the main page when he's in the show (or maybe on his first day?!) –anemone projectors– 14:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks great, can't believe how much info is out there already. I think you could move it whenever, as it definitely passes GNG. Have you got this week's Inside Soap? There's a great article about Mick and Linda in it. - JuneGloom Talk 18:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I got all three soap mags this week. There isn't actually much in the IS article that hasn't already been said elsewhere, but there are one or two good bits I can add. I think I'll wait at least until we know when his first episode will be. –anemone projectors– 08:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, if you think there's anything in the magazine I should add, let me know what and where, because I can't really see anything other than the one bit I already added. –anemone projectors– 16:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Blimey, looks good considering that he hasn't even appeared yet! Get's my vote...PS, Danny Dyer is bloody gorgeous! ;-) George Sorby 22:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It's great AP, but I would be more comfortable if we had a first episode date before it went live. But yeah, an absolutely fabulous effort. Bleaney (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I definitely want to wait until at least then. But thanks, both :-) –anemone projectors– 12:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You might want to correct "white family campaigner Dr Adrian Rogers" before going live, AP :) Stephenb (Talk) 12:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I haven't proof read it all yet ;-) –anemone projectors– 13:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

EE character Navigation boxes

A discussion has been started here regarding whether characters that do not have an article should appear in the navigation boxes, based on WP:NAV. Similar changes have been made for navboxes for Hollyoaks characters: [4] and Corrie characters: [5], but (at the moment) there does not seem to be any disagreement about those. Contributions welcome. Stephenb (Talk) 19:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears solved for now, though I do understand the reason. I'd prefer to see all the present characters included, and that goes for the other templates - the Corrie one has had a bit of an edit war going on. But one thing I will say here on the subject of navigation templates is that, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, the main {{EastEnders}} template shouldn't appear on character pages, because the characters aren't in that template. –anemone projectors– 15:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Scheduling changes

Couple of things to keep an eye on. Firstly, the omnibus appears to have moved (again) to 11:25pm Friday nights on BBC One, as of last night(January 3) - it's scheduled for the same next week, and the continuity announcer said something about it "settling into its new home". Secondly, as odd as it seems, it looks like a fifth episode has at least temporarily been added to the schedule with no announcement whatsoever - certainly the next two weeks add an episode at 8pm on Wednesday, with no apparent need for rescheduling further along the line, with Waterloo Road having made a seemingly permanent move to 8:30. Nothing much to say without sources right now, but obviously if these schedules become the norm over the next few weeks they will speak for themselves. U-Mos (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I already brought these things up at Talk:EastEnders#Omnibus edition, so I'm glad someone else has noticed. I agree, anyway. I personally doubt that the five episodes a week will continue, as the episodes are still being filmed in blocks of four, as evidenced by directors directing four episodes. Perhaps from 20 January, it will revert to four per week as then a director's block will start on Monday for the first time since last September! A permanent change to five per week would definitely have been announced, IMO, but we shall see. –anemone projectors– 20:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

BBC's Media Centre, TV Programme Information section, lists four episodes for the week 18-24 January - Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, so it looks like my theory may have been correct. –anemone projectors– 09:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC).

Notable events

Hi, I've been working on the years in British television articles, and wondered if someone here could help with a couple of notable EE events. I wanted to mention the episode featuring the Colin and Barry gay kiss, since it was the first to be featured in a British soap and I remember it caused a lot of controversy at the time, so wondered if anyone could help with an airdate. I've a feeling it was something like March or April 1987, but can only find mention of the year. Also, does anyone have an airdate for the Colin/Guido kiss from January 1989? Thanks Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject EastEnders At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of information from articles

Hello, I understand that there are a few members on here who are dedicated to the upkeep of these articles, which are some of the best written in terms of soap articles. However, it still infuriates me how things such as dates of birth and dates of death have been removed from the infoboxes and how suddenly without any form of discussion or consensus, characters names have gone from being "née" to just "previously" - therefore indistinguishable from maiden and say, previous married names. I understand some users may have their valid reasons as to why - but I can't help but feel that these sort of decisions have just become the decisions of a few members. I stumbled across a debate on the Digital Spy soaps forum recently that protested the removal of dates from the infoboxes, and after reading through and enquiring I found valid reasons as to why they shouldn't have been removed. Is there anyway we can have a discussion about these sorts of things? Alex250P (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Since the removal of birth/death dates affects more than just the EE articles, I believe the discussion took place at the infobox's talk page. - JuneGloom Talk 00:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed "née" because it means "born", and fictional characters are not born, they are written. We should also avoid using surnames for characters that they haven't been credited with. I think I might have started a discussion about this somewhere last year, but I can't remember. As for the infobox, it's nothing to do with Digital Spy, but yes the discussion should be (and hopefully is - I shall check) at the infobox talk page. –anemone projectors– 16:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

HELP!

Hi - I don't understand this!

I recently made this aricle, Babe Smith. On Mick Carter, on the list, it says 'Main Article: Mick Carter' and dosen't have the character infobox on the list. If I try and do this for my article, Babe Smith, on Babe Smith, also on the list, by putting 'Main Article: Babe Smith' and taking away the infobox on the list, I am being accused of vandalism. What am I doing wrong?

Thankyou --TheCoker (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Babe Smith isn't notable enough for a separate article at this time. –anemone projectors– 16:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Beale family tree

Where does Dolly Beale (Pauline Fowler's great aunt) come in? I haven't heard her mentioned in any episodes. (see the Beale family tree and family members section.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clements1997 (talk • contribs)

Not sure myself but someone knows. –anemone projectors– 08:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

But what I would like to know is why you added Samuel Beale and his supposed wife Kathleen Jones as Albert Beale's grandparents, and Jim Branning's parents James and Freida, and other Beales such as Edna Beale, Victor Beale, and Percy Beale. You appear to have completely made these names up. –anemone projectors– 08:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Family members who aren't characters

Normally in infoboxes, we list family members who have appeared as characters in the show if there's some sort of storyline connection, but even if they're a distant relative, such as Lola and Phil, and we list direct relatives (parents, siblings, children and spouses) even if they didn't appear. But should we just include characters that are characters? For example, does it matter that Mo Harris has a son called Billy or a daughter called Jean, or that Pat has a brother called Geoff? They're not characters, they're just mentions. Do we really really need to mention in the infobox that Linda's parents are called John and Elaine, when they're not characters? This in-universe information is probably better being mentioned somewhere in the prose, if it's really important. –anemone projectors– 17:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Any thoughts from anyone on this please? –anemone projectors– 10:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree. I feel the infoboxes are really lacking in their "info" at the moment - they may not be on-screen characters, but their off-screen influence has impacts to different characters etc. Just my opinion. Alex250P (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

In some cases, yes. Linda's always on the phone to her mother, but Elaine isn't a character. Like I said, better off mentioned in the prose if it's important, not in the infobox, which is meant to be for the most essential information, with as little "in-universe" information as possible. Mo's children Billy and Jean seem to have had no influence - why do we need to know these non-characters have been mentioned a few times? –anemone projectors– 07:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just been thinking about this. Normally I include direct relatives, such as parents and siblings, even if they haven't appeared on-screen. But I've been rethinking this ever since Neighbours introduced Nate Kinski. Nate was mentioned as being the cousin and nephew of some past characters, and I included them in the development info instead of the ibox. Nate recently mentioned his father's name, but I didn't add him to the ibox (an editor just has) as he has never been seen on-screen. I'm thinking that removing the direct relatives and mentioning them elsewhere in the article might be a good idea. Does WP:SOAPS have any additional info about this? - JuneGloom Talk 18:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox soap character#Relationship parameters says "Relations need only be noted if the relationship holds some notable significance for the character in question." In a lot of cases, the unseen parents, children and siblings do hold no notable significance. Perhaps it can be argued that only a character can hold notable significance. –anemone projectors– 08:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Character Images

Hello everyone

OK, I've come across a few instances lately where character images have been changed by someone acting in good faith, however the images that they have changed them to are of a poorer quality.

Myself and @Gungadin: had a brief discussion about this earlier on and one idea was that we use a promotional image in the infobox. If my memory serves me correctly, we did this with Stacey Slater with no problem. I mean a character doesn't have to have a change of image every single time they change their hairstyle etc, as long as they are identifiable. If a character has an image change we can easily enough wait until the BBC release a new promotional image can't we?

Thoughts on this?

Also, in the meantime if anyone comes across an article that has been changed to one of the poorer quality images, I would suggest posting the name of the article here so we can keep everything in one place. An admin can then try their best to get the previous image back--5 albert square (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I am fully in agreement with everything 5AS proposed.GunGagdin ^Moan 12:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Episode lists in EastEnders

Do they exist? Or, to put it another way, can they exist? I have recently been working on this. Not for much reason really, just a little bit of fun. I never expect it to become an actual page anytime soon. But would it work if it was made into an article, even though there are no others to date? Would it look a little out of place if it was to be published? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 00:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I am aware that Anemone Projectors does work on this, but you may have to speak to him. — Soaper1234 (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi RachelRice, your page looks great, so thanks for doing it. I've been trying to work on episode lists with the intent that they be put in mainspace when there are enough completed pages to do so. I've been offline for a while so didn't start a 2015 page. While I was away, User:Kelvin 101 did updates for me (see User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders episodes (2014)) (and thanks to Kelvin 101!). I've only just returned, but perhaps when I'm back properly, we could work together. Have a look at User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders episodes (I've added your 2015 page to my list). –anemone projectors– 11:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd be glad to work with others on the page. I've been a little behind but I shall be updating it this afternoon. Thanks for the feedback. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 14:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Joining the wikiproject

Where can you join the WikiProject as I have read about it and have shown an interest, after months of doing several articles based on EastEnders actors. This question would possible apply to several wikiprojects, but I am looking to join this one over the rest.

Thanks for all help, Soaper1234 (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not try WikiProject EastEnders Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Vincent Hubbard

I've been working on a page for Vincent Hubbard here. Is it worth making it an article yet? It's more detailed than some of the character pages we've already got. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 21:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a good article, but ideally I like to have about double the "real world" content that you have. Also, I tend to think fictional events should be covered in Wikipedia articles in the same order the viewer sees them, so I'm generally opposed to "backstory" sections, though in Vincent's case, merging his backstory with his appearances might be quite messy. There must be more sources as well - do you ever read the soap magazines? –anemone projectors– 15:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There's been a fair bit of info in Inside Soap if I recall. There has to be more reception info for him too. Have a look at the Daily Mail site (they do a special EE review article every week), The Free Library/Highbeam and All About Soap. Instead of a "backstory" section in the storylines, you could have a "introduction and characterisation" section in development. I used that format for Phoebe Nicholson. - JuneGloom07 Talk 18:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've saved all the soap mags recently so will have what Vincent stuff there is, and I know there's been a fair amount. I just don't have the time or opportunity to do anything with it at the moment. –anemone projectors– 21:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say it meets notability criteria for fiction. Obviously, building it up to be better sourced and with more real world content would be preferable, but it already fulfils the criteria imo, and it can be improved when it's live. In fact, creating a standalone page would mean that other editors can help improve it, which they won't necessarily do if it's in a sandbox GunGagdin^Moan 22:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point. At the moment I'd say it's borderline. A bit like some of the articles we've ummed and ahhed about, and gone back and forth with in the past (Danny Mitchell (EastEnders) springs to mind). But Vincent is here to stay so there will be loads more to come. –anemone projectors– 14:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'll take all your comments on board. I don't read soap magazines, but hopefully someone who does can contribute. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 20:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I should be able to at some point in the future, though it'll mean going back through them. But I can't do it at the moment, as I don't have internet access at my home, where my magazines are. –anemone projectors– 21:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Years of marriage in infoboxes

Hi all. I've just started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#In-universe dates in infoboxes, and I'd appreciate any input. –anemone projectors– 15:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Separate Articles

Sort of a follow on from above, I just need to get up to scratch as I have not been here for a few years! What do we not trust as a source? I clearly remember The Sun but not any others. I am currently working on a draft for Pam Coker as there is a lot of potential with her blackmailing and Les's cross dressing. Hope everyone is all good! Bluebolt94 14:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Generally the only sources I try to avoid are stuff like UnrealityTV which is technically a blog, but still appears in Google News. Would you like to add your draft to the list above? :-) anemone projectors 15:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I will add my draft up there, no worries! Bluebolt94 21:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject EastEnders/Archive 17 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:DATERANGE

This part of the MOS was updated in July with a change from a preference for two digits, to a preference for four digits, on the right side of year–year ranges. I've already applied this to year ranges in storyline sections, but should we also apply it to tables and infoboxes? Having read the reasons for this change, I think we should apply it everywhere, but will space be an issue? Let's see...

Character	Actor(s)	Duration
Sam Mitchell	Danniella Westbrook	1990–1993, 1995–1996, 1999–2000, 2002–2005, 2009–2010, 2016
Sam Mitchell	Kim Medcalf	1990–1993, 1995–1996, 1999–2000, 2002–2005, 2009–2010, 2016

That doesn't take up much more space than it did before, so that's ok. How about an infobox? I'll mock one up with parts of several different infoboxes using year ranges in different places (taken from Bianca Jackson (husband), Bobby Beale (EastEnders) (portrayer), Lucy Beale (portrayer and stepmother), Sam Mitchell (EastEnders) (duration), Ian Beale (wife), Zainab Masood (spinoffs)):

These are the sections of the infobox with ranges. The only ones wrapping over to a second line are Casey Anne Rothery's duration, which hasn't changed anyway, and Bianca's second marriage to Ricky, which isn't on a second line in her infobox currently, but is that such a problem? Sam's duration is already on three lines so makes no difference. It would also happen with Ian's second marriage to Jane if it ended at any point... but I would say these situations are rare enough for us to not worry. Unless anyone can think of anywhere it might cause problems? I don't especially like it when a duration for a marriage or something like that (even a year for an introducer) goes onto a second line, but it's happened already in places so I'd just have to accept it might happen a bit more now, unless we {{nowrap}} more things. anemone projectors 10:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand the possible problem with going onto a new line, but because it cannot be helped, I suppose we should start adding four digit years to everywhere. I think {{nowrap}} will make things a bit messy, so should add four digits and leave as that. Soaper1234 (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It'll be so easy to do with AWB so don't worry about working on it. I would just be able to do it at the press of a button. We use nowrap for durations so that this doesn't happen:

1990–1993, 1995–1996, 1999–
2000, 2002–2005, 2009–2010,
2016

for example! And it's used for Ian Beale's wives too. But for now let's not consider that and just using the two dates. I think it's fine to just go ahaed. So go ahead and revert my revert of your edit to the character list, and I'll work on the rest :-) anemone projectors 12:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Too late, I already got that far :-) anemone projectors 13:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

Because of the reports over Danny Dyer's break from the show this year, which were mentioned in the Mick Carter article, I've realised we need to tag pretty much all our character pages with a BLP notice. Actors' personal lives often affect suspensions or breaks, and even saying that an actor has been "axed" could be considered contentious if poorly sourced, so it would need to apply across the board, even if these things don't apply to a particular actor, because the policy still applies as the article relates to living people. We could go with {{BLP}} or {{BLP others}}, which says that the BLP policy does not apply directly to the subject of the article but may apply to individuals involved, though I think the latter is more for articles about deceased individuals, rather than articles that aren't about people. I guess it wouldn't apply to articles about characters whose actors have died. anemone projectors 11:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

So if I add the template to a character page whose actor is dead, please remove it! anemone projectors 11:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders/Archive 17/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject EastEnders.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject EastEnders, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Unnamed characters in character lists

Would it be acceptable to include a confirmed unnamed character on the character list for 2018? Colourlight (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we should wait for a name first, but I suppose you could write it and comment out the entire section, so at least we know what needs to be written and that it isn't forgotten. — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 09:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for your project?

Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.

Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Daily Mail

As the Daily Mail is generally considered unreliable, I thought I would list the articles in this Project that use it as a source, so that they can be checked and replaced or removed as necessary. Note that it is mostly for information on living people, but it should be easy to replace most sources if they're just talking about a storyline, new character or something like that. However, character or episode reviews should be acceptable, hopefully! Also, I'm not sure but some older DM sources might be acceptable but we can still try to replace them. I haven't checked what's what at the moment, but we can make notes here as things get checked.

— ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 17:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Promotional images

Is there a reason why some characters have promotional images and others have screenshots? I am aware that for earlier characters, promotional images may not be obtainable but for the newer characters, they are. I have already changed Tiffany Butcher and Alfie Moon's articles to include their BBC cast shot as the screenshots featured before were either not a true reflection on the character or poor, however I wanted to discuss the matter before updating all articles. My proposal is that all characters, with a Wikipedia article and a BBC character profile, should have their main image updated to be the promotional shot featured on the character page. In addition to this, characters with no BBC profile but have promotional images published online should also have this rule applied to them. Soaper1234 - talk 09:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@AnemoneProjectors, Kelvin 101, Grangehilllover, and HappyMan97: Pinging some regular editors to see their views. Soaper1234 - talk 11:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Where possible I think we should use promotional images, but I would prefer the ones on set like File:Paul Coker (EastEnders).jpg, not the white background ones like File:Stacey Slater (2014).jpg or File:Sonia fowler22.jpg - my preference anyway, I just don't like those ones. Try to get photos that credit the photographer - if you check the metadata for the Paul Coker photo, it says "© BBC/Kieron McCarron". And make sure the rationale is similar to the one I wrote there as well. — anemone projectors 12:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I've started a checklist-style in my sandbox which I am hoping to complete all. I agree about external promotional images over photoshoot promotional images. I shall try to credit the photographer and start uploading shortly. Soaper1234 - talk 12:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I do prefer ones like on Tiffany Butcher's too. Grangehilllover (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have uploaded the first of many (see File:Masood Ahmed.jpg), but used information used in the Tiffany image as I found this more detailed. I could not find any Masood original photographer information so could not cite the original photographer. Soaper1234 - talk 15:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Soaper1234: If you don't mind, I'm going to try a couple and I'll tell you which ones I've done? Grangehilllover (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The Tiffany rationale is good but the bit about "any other free image of the actor would not represent the character in terms of the setting, costume, etc" is missing - I thought that was good to strengthen the rationale. If the image has been cropped, "Portion" should state this. If it has been reduced, "Low_resolution" should say it has been reduced from the original. The template should be {{non-free promotional}} and if you could add the category Category:EastEnders images to any new uploads as well that would be great. — anemone projectors 17:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Orginally I think a lot of the screenshots were added before the promos were widely circulated. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Soaper1234: The Masood image photographer is Jack Barnes see metadata http://eastenders.wikia.com/wiki/File:Masood_Ahmed.jpg Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks AnemoneProjectors. I shall use that for all future images. @Grangehilllover: Sorry if you felt I was stepping on your toes by uploading new images over those you uploaded. I just felt they were too stretched. Thank you Kelvin 101. Soaper1234 - talk 13:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Soaper1234: It's fine. Grangehilllover (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Grangehilllover: I reverted Pete Beale, Lucy Beale and Arthur Fowler because again they were stretched - it looks like you tried to resize the images smaller but didn't maintain the aspect ratio. I do it in MS Paint - it's really simple. — anemone projectors 15:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The other thing is that the image source should be a page the image is found on, not a direct link to the image url. — anemone projectors 16:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Lastly (I hope!) the template should actually say {{non-free promotional|1=http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms|image_has_rationale=yes}}! Sorry to be a pain ;-) — anemone projectors 16:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't lastly! If the actor has died, please add "|image_is_of_living_person=no"! Thanksssss — anemone projectors 16:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, (and big hi to AP - we go way back on this wiki project). I uploaded loads of screenshots back in the day (something like mid 2000s). At the time on wikipedia, and in particular this wiki project, we were getting a lot of grief about using promo images. We were told that the use of screenshots were permissible (in moderation) and not promos or cast cards, and so we used these (painstakingly capturing images from the programmes) as it got the deletionists off our backs and meant we could still illustrate the articles. I see now that the rules regarding promo images have either changed, and I am glad because these promos look much better and I would support their use over screenshots any day. Nice to see all that hard work we put in still here and improved on, AP! GunGagdin^Moan 00:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yay! Hi Gungadin! — anemone projectors 14:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I now this is an old discussion now but I just saw an error I made - please ignore the "image_has_rationale=yes" part as that shouldn't be added by the uploader but by someone else reviewing the image :-) — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 16:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Grangehilllover: please note :-) — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 08:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

What is an "EastEnders spin-off"?

Recently, a lot of "spin-offs" have been added to character infoboxes such as "Pudding Lane" or "Ramsay Square", but I think we should work out exactly what to include and what not to, out of:

Series such as EastEnders: E20, Kat & Alfie: Redwater, Lauren's Diaries, Marsden's Video Diaries, The B&B and Tamwar Tales
The "bubbles" - "CivvyStreet", "Return of Nick Cotton", "Ricky & Bianca", "Dot's Story", "Perfectly Frank", "Pat & Mo".
Red-button or iPlayer broadcasts, including "Amira's Secret", "Phil on Remand", "Billy's Olympic Nightmare", "All I Want for Christmas", "Dorothy Branning: The Next Chapter", "T & B 4 Eva" and "Ramsey Square"
The home video releases - The Mitchells – Naked Truths, Slaters in Detention and EastEnders: Last Tango in Walford.
Charity specials.
1. Charity crossovers - e.g. Dimensions in Time, "East Street", "OzEnders", "The Walford Apprentice", "Peggy Vs Lauren". Some of these are listed, others aren't.
2. Charity performances - e.g. "WestEnders", "The Big Albert Square Dance", "Grease-Enders", "EastEnd Meets WestEnd".
3. Other sketches, like "The Ghosts of Ian Beale" and "Pudding Lane"

Personally, I think that anything that is considered a "special episode" should not be included, which includes the bubbles and Red Button/iPlayer stuff. The series should be included. Not sure about the rest. What do others think? What is a "spin-off episode" and what is a "special episode"? @5 albert square, Soaper1234, and Kelvin 101: anyone else? — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 22:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd say something that includes them actually saying/doing something. Some form of storyline. Ramsay Square isn't a spin-off, it was just a spoof response to East Erinsborough.--5 albert square (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say that the series and home video releases are definitely an "EastEnders spin-off". I'm on the fence about the charity crossovers as the actors do appear in them as their characters. Possibly, if this works, just include the series and home video releases in the infobox. Any thing else could be discussed in an "Other appearances" section? I am unsure about the charity crossovers and other sketches though. Soaper1234 - talk 14:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about the home video releases as spin-offs. I'm unsure about the charity specials as well, but mostly they're just made for fun and they're not really EastEnders spin-offs, at least not like the E20 or Redwater or Last Tango in Walford. I forgot to say that we should add "other appearances" sections. Fatboy (EastEnders)#Other appearances is a good example. — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 16:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The list above looks right although the term spin-off is used very loosely sometimes. I would say that only episodes that are part of the storyline in the main EastEnders should be included so certainly the series, bubbles and the red buttons but not the charity episodes as there are not really a part of the overall storyline. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kelvin 101: but do you think "CivvyStreet" and "Billy's Olympic Nightmare", for example, are just special EastEnders episodes or should they actually be classed as EastEnders spin-offs? — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 13:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the article Spin-off (media), Kelvin's definition could be the correct one. I'm so unsure! — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 13:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, on that page under "TV franchises" it talks about EastEnders and has the bubbles and series listed but nothing else. Maybe that should be our limit, and the red buttons and charity specials are the ones we should consider removing. — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 13:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't class Ramsay Square or East Erinsborough spin-offs. They were simply a funny birthday greeting which happened to have some cast members taking part. Whereas as the EE bubbles contribute to and advances various storylines/character development. I haven't seen the home video releases, so I don't know whether the events in those are ever touched upon during the show, but I think I would call them spin-offs. I'm not too sure about the charity specials though. And I know this is an EE discussion, but Neighbours has a fair few (mostly online) spin-offs now, so this could benefit those articles too, especially in regards to Neighbours vs Zombies and Neighbours vs Time Travel. They are sort of spin-offs, but they don't fit in with what I said above as the events aren't mentioned in the show. - JuneGloom07 Talk 16:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Portal:EastEnders

I've just remembered that we have a portal! But it's severely out of date. I used to update the news section many years ago but my last update was June 2011 (someone added Nick's death in 2015) and I don't really have the time to do it now. Although the portal page gets on average only 9 views a day, I think it would still be nice if it was up to date. In fact, I just updated the Did You Know section. So it's just the news one that needs regular updates. The kind of things I used to add were announcements of character arrivals, returns and departures, award nominations and wins, spin-off and documentary announcements, cast member deaths and cast member reality TV appearances. So my question is, is anyone interested in maintaining the news section? anemone projectors 18:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I can certainly give it a go! I'm not on that often but I can keep an eye on it when I am :-) Bluebolt94 20:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I think if we all collaborate together and add news as and when we spot it, it might be good! Soaper1234 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks you two. I agree, to collaborate on it would be good. I guess if we were to start today, the latest news is the death of Andrew Sachs, as he played Cyril Bishop. Also, do we need to update any of the other parts? Maybe pick new articles for selected article and selected biography? Does the top section need updating? Also I think the DYK section should just be kept to official EastEnders DYKs, whereas before we picked random facts and updated it weekly. anemone projectors 10:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I keep forgetting, but I think I've kept it up to date so far... it should really be updated on the day it happens. I just realised Glenda and Danny's unannounced returns should also be there... anemone projectors 16:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Well this didn't last long! anemone projectors 09:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I decided to revamp the portal to make it more like the Fictional Characters one, so it selects a random article out of a selection of a few. I've selected 4 characters and 3 episodes, but other sections can be added. I've removed the biography section as I didn't know who to include, and the news section, because it wasn't being updated. Check it out and let me know what you think. — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 12:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

MOS:DATERANGE states that two year digits may be used in infoboxes

I think that we should use the two digit years in the infoboxes. It looks much, much, much nicer and cleaner, and takes up less space as well. There was no problem with it before, so why was it changed? I think it should be changes, as MOS:DATERANGE states that two year digits may be used in infoboxes. It looks much nicer and it is not a problem at all. To be honest, using four digits on both sides looks messy- what is the point of saying 2016 to 2017 when you could sy 2016--17? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2018

MOS:DATERANGE says that we may use two digit ending years if space is limited, not just we may use it in infoboxes. It doesn't say we have to use them if space is limited, and I don't believe space is limited. The reason it was changed before is that MOS:DATERANGE said we should use four digit ending years and did not give any exceptions for infoboxes. I disagree that it looks nicer and cleaner (I don't believe either way is "cleaner" so should be disregarded as an argument). I think we should be consistent throughout all EastEnders articles and keep to full years. I believe it gives more clarity, and with two digit ending years, we used to end up with incorrect ranges like "1998–02", and some people got confused. Changing it to how it is now took a hell of a lot of work and changing it back will create even more because there are many more articles now. If there is a consensus to change then fine, but if and only if it is agreed, then I would suggest that it is only changed where there is more than one range in a single infobox (e.g. Tiffany Butcher could change to "2008–14, 2016, 2018–") but if a character has only one range, it should stay as it is (e.g. AJ Ahmed would stay as "2012–2014"). Also, if a character has multiple durations and one of them cannot use a two digit ending year because it is in a different century, then none of them should (e.g. Ricky Butcher should stay as "1988–2000, 2002–2004, 2008–2012" and not change to "1988–2000, 2002–04, 2008–12" to make sure it stays consistent within that infobox). I think it's too complicated to change and not necessary to change. — ᴀnemone ᴘroᴊecтors 21:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

List of EastEnders characters

Can I add 'List of EastEnders characters (____)' to the individual character articles 'See also' section? 19:18 MoonBoyy

@MoonBoyy: Just a tip for signing your messages. If you type ~~~~ or click the button next to Sign your posts on talk pages when making an edit, it will add your signature. Soaper1234 - talk 18:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Cheers :)MoonBoyy (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:EE" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:EE and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12#Wikipedia:EE until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:EE" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:EE and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 15#Wikipedia:EE until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of EastEnders characters (1985)#Requested move 5 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of EastEnders characters (1985)#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)