Talk:EastEnders/Archive 3

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

Omnibus edition[edit]

I notice the Omnibus edition was moved to a late night slot on Friday on 6 April, and is on again this coming Friday (13 April). There's no reliable sources for this but I'm wondering if it is temporary or permanent. Have added the move to 2012 in British television and think it needs investigating by someone more familiar with the subject. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, I'll look into it for you but I would assume it's temporary, as you don't see many people watching a soap at 1 in the morning! GSorby – Ping 14:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Usually they move it to make way for a sporting event or something like that, but yesterday's schedule appears to have had nothing special in its line-up, and anyway they tend to move BBC One programmes to BBC Two in that scenario. Moving it to the middle of the night does seem sort of an odd thing to do with one of their most popular programmes. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They've done this before. I think it was over Christmas though I could be wrong. But I assumed it was because of Easter. –anemoneprojectors– 13:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/eastenders/2012/04/eastenders-omnibus-has-moved.shtml –anemoneprojectors– 14:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also now on Digital Spy if anyone wants to add this. No reasons yet as to why they did it, but they certainly kept it quiet. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How odd! I had assumed that this had only changed for a couple of weeks because of Easter and RMS Titanic's anniversary, didn't think it was for good. What an odd time to show a soap! Looking at the comments on their website though, doesn't look as if it's popular so don't know if it will stay at that time.--5 albert square (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i was thinking it could be until the olympics are over aswelll? A better solution would be to put it on bbc three I think but late night it ain't gonna get many viewers! Fatty2k10 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that too, that's why when I reverted it a few days ago I listed Titanic's anniversary and sporting events as a reason. I would have thought if it was just temporary though the blog would have said when it would return to Sundays or said it was just for such-and-such an event? Either way it doesn't appear popular going by the comments on their blog. I even looked twice at the date on the blog, thought I was reading an April Fools a few days late!--5 albert square (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someone added the blog as a ref in the lead so I've swapped it for Digital Spy's story. Must admit I hadn't thought of the Titanic anniversary as a reason when I started this thread, but that would only relegate it to BBC Two. Olympics is a possibility, but why move it now and not in July? Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the omnibus just doesn't get the ratings it used to. I used to enjoy watching EastEnders again on a Sunday afternoon, but I don't get the chance to anymore (and certainly won't now) but of course, as they say, the omnibus will still be available on iPlayer. –anemoneprojectors– 12:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(←) This story has info on ratings [1] –anemoneprojectors– 13:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to the lead for now, but if someone wants to factor the information into the appropriate section that would be good. Interestingly I wonder what the situation is in Ireland. RTE One simulcasts EastEnders with BBC One on weekdays, but do they also show the omnibus? I don't see it on RTE One's Friday night schedule for this week (or on Sunday for that matter) so I'm guessing not. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BBC 3 just reported that it's been moved to avoid clashing with sporting events. Maybe it's just until the Olympics are over?--5 albert square (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be what people are saying now (Sharon Marshall, for example). –anemoneprojectors– 13:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not it would seem, BBC saying it for good. Can't see it sticking though, judging by the posts on the BBC's own blog, I think the decision is already unpopular with half of Britain!--5 albert square (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Omnibus repeat has been shown on BBC 2 on either Saturday or Sunday lunch-times since the beginning of January 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.151.64 (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed this. Do we know why? Any news sources? –anemoneprojectors– 07:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just googled it and found nothing, I'm only finding information on fans being in uproar the last time they changed it. I'm wondering if its possibly to just accommodate sport or something? How long did it take for the BBC to make an official announcement the last time? This is ridiculous now though - like a yo-yo the way it keeps changing times and days!--5 albert square (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the thing is they said it was a permanent move to Saturday's early hours. It can't have moved due to sport, because there's no sport on at that time, surely! But now it's moved back to Sunday afternoon, but is on BBC Two instead of BBC One. Maybe due to demand. We'll never know. Last time they announced it before it happened. –anemoneprojectors– 08:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong but this appears to indicate that the omnibus is moving back to Friday night/Saturday morning. And what's with the 3+ weeks in January with 5 episodes? –anemoneprojectors– 17:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The five weekday episodes shown for a few weeks in January 2014 has reflected the influx of new characters and culmination of some storylines and introduction of others. The weekly episodes have reverted back to four from the week commencing January 20th 2014. The continuity announcer said before the broadcast aired on January 3rd that the Omnibus edition would henceforth be shown in its new regular spot, on a Friday evening, following 'The Graham Norton Show'.Philip Dunn (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factcheck at Beale family[edit]

Would someone familiar with the subject terribly mind double-checking the accuracy of the statement regarding six children at the top of Beale family? I'm digging through some hoaxing, and this could very well be part of it, or not, and I imagine that folks familiar with the series (I'm not) would be able to answer that pretty quickly. Drop me a note if you find issues, and thanks in advance. Best, --j⚛e deckertalk 19:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure exactly which six children you mean but the family tree looks accurate to me, as it currently stands. –anemoneprojectors– 09:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on EastEnders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on EastEnders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on EastEnders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actors' salaries and Budget[edit]

@AnemoneProjectors:Hi was reading The Big Bang Theory#Actors.27 salaries then came across an old article on EE Actors' salaries and Annual Budget, do you think this is worth mentioning on the main article. http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2011-05-14/how-much-do-soap-stars-earn thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, TBBT has a smaller cast and RT seem to be talking generally. The only relevant part seems to be "Of EastEnders' £29.9m annual budget, £2.9m is spent on scripts, while £6.9m is spent on paying actors, extras and chaperones for child actors" but this was as of 2011, so we'd have to say that.
This part: "Across Emmerdale, Coronation Street and EastEnders, the pay structure is the same: actors get a fee per episode, which can range from £400 to £2,000, with a guaranteed number of episodes a year (as few as 30 or as many as 100) and a repeat fee." could be relevant if we knew that the range applied to EastEnders and not just all soaps (i.e. it could be that £400 is the bottom number across all 3 but not necessarily the bottom number for EE). The rest is quite speculatory based on averages. Although some salaries were leaked and are included in that article, I don't think it's worth mentioning individual ones. So I think it would make for quite a short section in the article. anemoneprojectors 19:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kelvin 101: I just noticed you put in the budget and cost section, which is good. The stuff about the live episode needs to go into the article EastEnders Live, though there isn't a specific section it can go in, so I've not put it in for now. Any ideas? anemoneprojectors 22:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AnemoneProjectors: The only way I could think of is mentioning it in the lead, although its more about production but like you say there is no section it could fit into. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk)

I thought about "origin" but then the entire cost includes the filming as well... perhaps just at the top of the production section outside of the subsections? That doesn't seem to work because it can't go before the origins! It seems too little to give it its own section. anemoneprojectors 22:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelvin 101: Hi, since you added the writers fees, I think adding more detailed actor salaries would work, so I've added the few that were available. However, we probably shouldn't list all that we ever see... I managed to work out what the agreement you mentioned was saying, which was that EastEnders writers are paid 85% of the normal per-minute fee for their scripts. I worked that out to be £875,772 for 212 episodes a year. That's very different to 2011's £2.9 million that was spent on scripts, so I wonder what the difference was.

Ofcom soap violence report[edit]

@AnemoneProjectors and Soaper1234:Hi just spotted this report on violence in soaps by Ofcom, do you think elements of this report could be used in the Realism section or if you have an idea for another section in mind.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/tv-research/violence/CRG_content_analysis.pdf#page=14

Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd say that this discussion is open to all editors, not just those "pinged" :-) (no need to ping me anyway, this is on my watchlist and it's certainly not urgent and I don't want it to look like a small number of editors are taking ownership or being cliquey.) @Kelvin 101: I don't think this belongs in the "realism" section, though at 64 pages I'm not going to read it to find out if any of it is. Which elements of the report to you think could be mentioned in this article? anemoneprojectors 11:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point will bear it in mind for the future, I thought mentioning the "Proportion of episodes with violence, by soap" and EastEnders always scoring the highest is a point to be made (Page 11). Also "Realism of violent scenes" on page 15 EE scoring highest again. Although it might just be me trying too much unnecessary information. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah you could put it in then. anemoneprojectors 10:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

Should we ask for a peer review for this article, so we can work toward a good article. Or if anyone would like to list improvement that need to be made, I would be happy to try and fix any problems. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many problems. The main ones for me are the characters section being filled with original reserach and the ratings section being too recent. anemoneprojectors 08:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any spare time can you make a few notes on this page User:Kelvin 101/EastEnders (Main article draft), I have put comment boxes in each section. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let everyone know there is as an active peer reviews Wikipedia:Peer review/EastEnders/archive2 Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, so far it's pretty much as I expected. anemoneprojectors 20:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone object to the ratings section being mostly a table rather than it just being all text? Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kelvin 101: I would sort of object. I think the first paragraph is probably good and we should mention the launch show, the lowest and highest ever ratings, and then maybe some of the more high-profile episodes over the years, e.g. the live episodes and maybe some others. A table would be good, I shall adapt the one I've already done in my list of episodes draft. I think I should add highest and lowest ratings for each year to that table as well. anemoneprojectors 11:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some big edits today on the article. I split the "Criticism" section as recommended and removed some of the complaints, as there are a lot of complaints and only the big ones really need mentioning. I added the ratings table and cut down some of the text there, and rearranged it to be more chronological. I changed the "rebuilding the EastEnders set" section to just "set" and moved it to the top of the "Production" section, and expanded it by merging the real-world information from Albert Square (I then merged the rest of that article to Walford, see also Talk:Albert Square). I changed "Realism" to "Storylines" and moved it to after "Characters". And I rearranged the "Setting" section slightly. I failed to do much in the "Characters" section, because though there is much original research, if it was all sourced I wouldn't know what to remove from it, it all seems quite good to me - it has the main character types there, the family matriarch, the strong woman, the tart with a heart, the eternal victim, the macho man, the bad boy, the heartthrob, the weak husband, the cheeky chap, the wide boy, the villain, the duo, the eldery characters used for comedy, and the diversity of characters. In fact, we could probably write more on the diversity of characters. Kelvin, you might want to update your page User:Kelvin 101/EastEnders (Main article draft) now. anemoneprojectors 15:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, have a look at the above sections #Problems and #EastEnders Ratings, you can see these things have been brought up before, and now we're finally doing something, maybe we need to go back there for some suggestions. Might be more in the archives. Also #Possible sources needs going through! anemoneprojectors 16:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you have done a quite lot. I will take a look at all the links and come back to you. Kelvin 101 (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No need, I've looked at them all, added comments in that section. anemoneprojectors 06:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you mean those sections rather than the list of sources. I've looked at the sources. You can see what you think about my comments though. The earlier sections are interesting because it shows that this article has always been in a poor state but the ideas to improve it have always been pretty much the same! anemoneprojectors 10:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've now severely cut down (removing the tedious lists of characters and storlines) the History of EastEnders article and merged it to the history section of this article, though some other parts went to the set, characters and storylines sections. This section is quite long though, so I wonder if it could be cut down further. anemoneprojectors 13:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Storylines after 2006-ish[edit]

The storylines section is missing about 10 years of storylines. Obviously we only need to include the major ones, or the groundbreaking ones... so I'm looking for suggestions. Having just been looking for LGBT characters for the characters section, I found two storylines that I think should be added. Syed's relationship with Christian in 2009 was called "one of the last taboos left in soap" and a "traditional love affair with a modern multicultural twist"[2]. The LGBT domestic abuse plot involving Tina and Tosh was widely praised for raising awareness (ok I didn't find that, it was given to me in the above section!). So I think they should be included. Now I'm looking for suggestions for more, the issues that hadn't really been tackled before... Thanks! anemoneprojectors 13:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Store[edit]

BBC Store announced its closure today, meaning no more purchases are available. Does anyone know how many episodes of EastEnders were available as of yesterday? This also means that purchased content will no longer be available to view, and everyone will have to apply for a refund, so this would also need to be reflected in the article. @Kelvin 101: am I right in believing that you may have purchased episodes? If so, you may know some of the answers. —anemoneprojectors— 14:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AnemoneProjectors: Hi its sad that BBC Store had closed. 872 would have be the final count (counting hour long episode as one). Although there were some episodes that were not included in this BBC Store list and were part of bundles but luckily, I recently made a list here http://eastenders.wikia.com/wiki/BBC_Store Hope that's helpful. The 872 includes episodes that were part of a bundle but not episode that were listed as currently unavailable or CivvyStreet. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed[edit]

Hi does anyone think the below sentence is more an opinion?

  • These themes that were found for the setting can still be found in a present-day episode of EastEnders.

I don't see how this would be referenced unless numerous episode were referenced.

Any thoughts?

Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible that someone has mentioned this in a later source and said that's still the case, but that could be anywhere between, say, 1995 and 2015, and wouldn't be for a "present day" episode. I think the paragraph is basically saying that this is what EE is based on, and therefore we can remove the sentence. —anemoneprojectors— 21:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth discussing in the future if we can't find sources for the citations removing the unsourced material.

  • Conception and preparations for broadcast
    • EastEnders, while also featuring an East End street market, would be very different in its approach and impact. (might be an opinion not a fact)
  • Final preparations
    • Following the launch, both group discussions and telephone surveys were conducted to test audience reaction to early episodes. Detailed reactions were taken after six months and since then regular monitoring was conducted.
  • 1980s broadcast history
    • By Christmas 1985, the tabloids couldn't get enough of the show. 'Exclusives' about EastEnders storylines and the actors on the show became a staple of tabloid buyers daily reading. (might be an opinion not a fact)
  • Characters
    • The Beales are the show's longest running family, having been in EastEnders since it began in 1985. (Not sure how to source this)
    • Huw Edwards and Lenny Wallace, Shirley Carter and Heather Trott, Garry Hobbs and Minty Peterson, Denise Fox and Zainab Masood, Poppy Meadow and Jodie Gold and Peggy Mitchell and Pat Butcher.
  • Setting
    • the interior to the Fowlers' is based on a house in Manor Road, Colchester, close to where the supervising art director lived.
    • The fictional local newspaper, the Walford Gazette, in which local news events such as the arrests or murders of characters appear, mirrors the real Hackney Gazette.
  • Set
    • In 1993, George Street was added, and soon after Walford East tube station was built, to create further locations when EastEnders went from two to three episodes per week. The set was constructed by the BBC in house construction department under construction manager Mike Hagan. The initial build took 6 months to complete.
    • Most areas by the front (and sometimes back) doors are decorated and dressed to match the interior set to allow shots of doors being opened.
    • The grocery shop was originally open fronted, it was turned into a closed front shop, with removable interior walls to allow for filming inside the shop when the set was expanded in 1987.
    • Some interior shots are filmed in the actual buildings, and the café also has some interior decoration so some limited filming can take place by the door.
    • The newer exterior sets including fish & chip shop, video shop and beauty salon had some interior filming space to create a greater sense of realism.
    • As the show is filmed up to six weeks in advance, the trees need to have extra leaves stuck on them during the spring to make them look like they would in summer.
  • Filming
    • The two-handers (when only two actors appear in an episode) were originally done for speed; while a two-hander is being filmed, the rest of the cast can be making another episode.
  • Scheduling
    • Since 1985, EastEnders has remained at the centre of BBC One's primetime schedule. It is currently broadcast at 7.30pm on Tuesday and Thursday, and 8pm on Monday and Friday. EastEnders was originally broadcast twice weekly at 7 pm on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 19 February 1985, with an omnibus at 3:30 pm on Sundays; however, in September 1985 the two episodes were moved to 7:30 pm as Michael Grade did not want the soap running in direct competition with Emmerdale Farm, and this remained the same until 7 April 1994. The BBC had originally planned to take advantage of the 'summer break' that Emmerdale Farm usually took to capitalise on ratings, but ITV1 added extra episodes and repeats so that Emmerdale Farm was not taken off the air over the summer. Realising the futility of the situation, Grade decided to move the show to the later 7:30 pm slot, but to avoid tabloid speculation that it was a 'panic move' on the BBC's behalf, they had to "dress up the presentation of that move in such a way as to protect the show" giving "all kinds of reasons" for the move.
  • Ratings
    • It has proved highly popular and Appreciation Indexes reflected this, rising from 55–60 at the launch to 85–95 later on, a figure which was nearly ten points higher than the average for a British soap opera.
    • Research suggested that people found the characters true to life, the plots believable and, importantly in the face of criticism of the content, people watched as a family and regarded it as viewing for all the family.
    • Based on market research by BBC commissioning in 2003, EastEnders is most watched by 60- to 74-year-olds, closely followed by 45- to 59-year-olds.
    • An average EastEnders episode[when?] attracts a total audience share between 35 and 40%.
    • whilst the Sunday omnibus generally attracted 3 million.
    • EastEnders is one of the more popular programmes on British television and while the show's ratings have fallen since its initial surge in popularity and the advent of multichannel digital television, the programme continues to be successful for the BBC.
  • Controversial storylines
    • Jake's sex scenes were later removed from the Sunday omnibus edition. (Could episode be referenced?)

Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read through them all but I always assumed much of this, especially from the history section, was written by Wikipedians from back in the day like Gungadin and taken from books, though she was good at citing sources so perhaps not. The scheduling section should be easy. I don't even know where to find Appreciation Indexes. Some of this could be original research but much of it must have come from somewhere. People are good at reading something and adding it to wikipedia without citing the source. I wouldn't reference the episode for the Jake thing, though. —anemoneprojectors— 22:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lesbian-related television programmes[edit]

I just saw this category was added, because there have been lesbian chracters in the show. Does that mean we should also add the following categories:

All have featured to some degree, but I would say no to all, including the lesbian-related category, but apart from the families category, because EastEnders is centered around families, always has been and it's what the show was based on when it was created. Essentially, it's a show about working-class life, and therefore has characters from a wide range of backgrounds. Just beacuse it has some lesbian characters, some bisexual characters, one transgender character, a small number of Jewish characters, some characters with disability... doesn't make it a television show about those things or a lesbian-related television show. Is Category:Lesbian-related television programmes really for all television programmes with at least one lesbian character? Pinging Pyxis Solitary to this discussion as the person who added the category. anemoneprojectors 08:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, maybe related is ok, but about isn't (other than family, and maybe other than Jewish). Or we can discuss each one. But I think we would need to make sure these types of characters and storylines are mentioned in the relevant sections here. anemoneprojectors 08:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of categories is for browsing subjects. Does a TV series have recurring characters that are/were lesbian, or gay, or bisexual, or transgender? Was their sexual nature a characteristic in the ongoing plot? Were their same-sex affairs and/or relationships a feature of the show's storyline? In EastEnders, Sonia Fowler had a lesbian relationship with Naomi. Della and Binnie were a lesbian couple. Tina and Tosh wanted to co-parent. These are not marginal characters with marginal stories. Adding a category that reflects their inclusion in the show is not about what we ... the person ... prefer. This is about verifiable facts regarding a TV show. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you there (hence my second thought), but they still need to be added to the relevant sections - I don't think the characters section makes any reference to LGBT characters - to make the category(s) valid. And it still leaves the question of which other categories need to be added. anemoneprojectors 09:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This TV article is one of many where relevant details about characters (such as being lesbian or having been in a same-sex relationship) are not included. I don't think it's intentional. Editing Wikipedia is time consuming and many people contribute what they intended to and then move on to something else, or find that they no longer have the same amount of time to dedicate to it. I'll swing by again and will add some detail where it's missing. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It never fails to happen. Every time I poke an existing article, I crack open a can of 'content sorely needed'. One quick web search of "EastEnders+homosexuals" and "+lesbians" and "+gays" returns page-after-page of hits. Little did I know that in 1986, The Sun newspaper created a media storm with the headline: EastEnders is turning into "EastBenders" with two gays joining the soap's line up. The character of Colin Russell was the first Gay character on a UK soap and the 1987 kiss (on the forehead) between him and character Barry Clark was the first kiss between two men on a British soap. Then in 1989, Colin had an on-screen mouth-to-mouth smackeroo with Guido Smith and The Sun headline was: A homosexual love scene between two yuppie poofs. Among the many articles about homosexual characters and same-sex stories on EastEnders, there is Coming out on screen from 1998, 211 complaints to BBC over gay EastEnders storyline, but do the public care? from 2006, EastEnders LGBT domestic abuse plot praised following Tina, Tosh clash from 2014.
EastEnders is included in List of soap operas with LGBT characters and List of LGBT characters in television and radio (31 individual entries). Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree it's not intentional that things are missed. This article has been in need of a major restructuring for many years (see above) and it's only really this month that anyone has started to do it (pretty much me and User:Kelvin 101!). I like that you've opened a can of "content sorely needed" because it brings attention to it and it's at a time where I'm actually trying to do something about it (when I'm not working, which in a couple of weeks will probably be almost non-stop until November - bye Wikipedia! ). You found some good sources there so I'll look into adding them. anemoneprojectors 13:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that Roscelese has removed the categories and I think the reasoning behind it is fair. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 21:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EastEnders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long-running?[edit]

Could the editors Davey2010, Escape Orbit, Gareth Griffith-Jones, and Fronticla, who are edit-warring on this possibly discuss here instead? --John (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Describing the series as "long running" is a clear matter of opinion and peacocking. Because it is imprecise, it doesn't tell the reader anything useful, other than the fact that someone is of the opinion that it is "long running". How long does a programme have to run before it may be described this way? Consider Emmerdale or Coronation Street and you may be of the opinion that Eastenders is a young upstart. So let's do with out opinions all together.

It is doubly redundant when you consider the very same lead sentence goes on to tell the reader precisely how long it has been running for, in a factual manner far more suited to a lead sentence. So really, we don't need this intrusive opinion cluttering the lead. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. As an editor who detests redundancy in copy, I find the opening sentence both accurate and concise.
No evidence here of this claim Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 11:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you have a definition for "long running" that doesn't involve opinion? Please share it. It is entirely peacocking, because it "neither imparts nor plainly summarizes verifiable information". It is an undefined definition that tells the reader nothing factual. The lead should not "making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance" and instead "use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance". The lead already states the programme started in 1985. The reader can therefore make up their own mind if it is "long running", without being told what to think by Wikipedia.
Would we equally voice an opinion about the mature age of an individual? An actor, for instance? "Harrison Ford (born July 13, 1942) is a veteran American actor and film producer" "Dame Judith Olivia "Judi" Dench, CH, DBE, FRSA (born 9 December 1934) is an long established English theatre and film actress" I doubt it, so why do it here? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The show's been going for 32 years so describing it as "long-running" would be correct ... IMHO it's not even close to POV ... you're simply stating the truth if that makes sense, As for other shows not having it - That's an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguement which isn't entirely related to this (If you want to go to the talkpage on both Corrie and Emmerdale to have "long-running" added then fine), But back on topic I honestly don't see the issue with "long-running", Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest any OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I was merely illustrating that "long running" is a matter of opinion. Emmerdale and Coronation Street do not, and should not, have this POV flavoured description for the exact same reasons. At what point is Hollyoaks, for instance, allowed this description? Is there a age that must be reached? What is it? The definition is imprecise, POV, does not belong in the lead, and redundant.
I'm afraid that so far the arguments in support of the expression are effectively "I am of the opinion it is long running, therefore it is accurate". As I've tried to explain, opinions of what makes a programme long running is irrelevant, and if we are to allow this we should permit "gritty", "dull", "realistic" or "tedious" as well. Is it ok as long as someone is of the opinion that it is accurate? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010:, @Gareth Griffith-Jones: - can either of you give me a definition of "long running" that doesn't involve an opinion?? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since you decline to reply, I shall assume that you can't support the inclusion of this phrase and remove it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I wouldn't class "long-running" as an opinion - I can see the logic in why you do but I just don't see it that way, The best resolution would be to start an RFC - Removing it will only start a war which I'm sure you'll agree we don't want, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you could suggest a factual definition, as I've requested a number of times, then I'd accept that. But otherwise we may as well be asking how long is long running? It tells the reader nothing factual, it is an opinion. I was rather hoping to avoid the administrative red-tape of a RFC. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And as I've said "long-running" is more than fine and again if you want to start an WP:RFC by all means please do so, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 23:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Long-running" is arbitrary, "EastEnders has been running for a long time" is a meaningless thing to say, especially when the first sentence already says it's been on air since 1985. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 09:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. For what it matters; I'm of the opinion that it probably is "long-running". But my opinion doesn't belong in the article, any more than any other editor's. And generally, no opinions should feature in the lead sentence.
It's plain peacocking. The reader is to be impressed over the length of time the soap has been on air, but in reality they have been told nothing factual. It is an empty statement at the best of times, but all the worse for being in the lead sentence.
I'd be happy to discuss this, but no matter how I phrase my questions, the only defence offered to date has been "I think it's fine." Does anyone want to offer a reason for this phrase, other than whether they agree with it? What does it bring to the article that merits its position in the lead sentence? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EastEnders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Beale murder was not a whodunit.[edit]

So, even though the episode in which she is killed showed her murderer over the body (thus no mystery over killed her), her murder is classed as a whodunit? I'd love to see a citation in the whole section of 'storylines' where whodunits are discussed. Any citation will do, as there are currently zero. Something which is absolutely not a whodunit (as in a mystery surrounding events caused by unknown person) has been called one by 'someone', so it is called one here. Tell me, which 'reliable source' has completely redefined the word, so it now means the exact opposite of what it used to mean?

I mean sure, it's not a whodunnit… – DarkGlow • 16:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits made by Rolltide689[edit]

95% of these edits made in the early hours by user Rolltide689 are grammatically incorrect and all need reverting back to the original state. Can anyone who has the admin privilege please revert all of these. It will take a good amount of time to manually revert all the grammatical errors that have been made, otherwise. RM-Taylor (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted. Rolltide689 is a fan of the Oxford comma and generally adding commas where-ever possible. They aren't necessary in most instances and wrong in some. But happy to hear any rational for having them discussed here. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Politicisation[edit]

Actor John Altman tells that producers were told to 'write him out' of the show as Nick Cotton after he opposed a decision to make his character gay.(John Altman, AKA Eastender's Nasty Nick: It's almost like the Taliban. You can't say what you like.) He feels that there is an increasing politicisation of the show which he ties to the plunging ratings. tickle me 16:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Pulling Eastenders off PBS[edit]

BBC is pulling Eastenders off of PBS, effective December 12, 2021! I think they are currently in the 2009 season. I have watched Eastenders FOREVER on PBS and assume there are so many seasons I need to see. This is my guilt show- I love it madly and passionately! Where do I find the 2009- and on seasons? They are not on Netflix, Prime or The Site. How can BBC be so cruel? 2600:8805:4A00:CA70:7546:709D:4D32:60B0 (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 ratings update[edit]

Ratings need updating to 2022. Currently Eastenders gets around 3 to 4 million viewers. Percy2345 (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023[edit]

The episode count in this article for Eastenders is incorrectly showing as 6705 episodes when this is incorrect. As of today's date the BBC will be airing episode 6740 as of 27/07/2023, this is also backed up by Digital Spy's episode synopsis of EastEnders. https://www.digitalspy.com/soaps/eastenders/a44552495/eastenders-spoilers-stacey-stalked/ KiranC93 (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Meena • 12:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:EastEnders/Archive_3&oldid=1182078665"