Talk:EastEnders/Archive 1

Opening comments

I have cleared up confusion between the postal district E20, and the club E20, by removing the parenthesised comment about the club. The sentence as is stood, seemed to be saying that the postal district was renamed Angie's Den, which is clearly nonsensical.

Re: "Walford has the postal district of E20, thus fans have also tried to pinpoint the location using this.". London postal districts are alphabetical, not geographical. E16 = Victoria Dock, E17 = Walthamstow. E18 = Woodford. If the postal district is also called Walford, it would be E16½! TiffaF 10:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think that Kelly should come back from Spain, the executive producers never gave Brooke Kinsella's character time to develop and get a proper storyline. Kelly was a popular character in the soap and her arrival back to the square would add a much needed boost to the storylines. I would like to see her return to give Zoe a friend who she can rely on!! (.:

Is there any way to briefly describe what EastEnders is all about in the opening paragraphs? Understandably, long running british TV series tend to be about everything and anything, but there has to be a way encapsulating the series and orienting the reader besides saying it's "a soap opera." Thanks in advance.Jahenderson 20:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

I am busy at this moment, but I would like to point out that this rewrite is extremely POV. I'll dig up examples later. Mike H 06:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

This link has been cited, but I have a print source "40 Years on Coronation Street" by Daran Little which has the viewing figures from 1994. The difference may be that the EastEnders episode aired in '94 came on during the second of two parts of a Corrie episode (Emily's engagement breaking off). Mike H 06:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

The whole artile seems wildly pro-EastEnders. Well-known criticisms of the show are mentioned but then mostly seem to be followed by some sort of justification or excuse, and generally much of it seems to sound quite defensive. The article seems to focus on the received knowledge that EE is gritty, harsh, realistic. What about the endless comedy, romance, extra-marital affairs? The sporting teams and community fund raisers? The dramas of the Angie's Den fire inspection? Cindy's hair colouring disaster? Barry's blue-ink carpet stain? Barry's "realistic" home movies? Wellard and Robbie? Barry or Nigel? This sort of thing is often much more common than anything gritty or "realistic" in the show. I will try to clean this up though. Asa01 22:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree there's very little mention of the criticisms of the show that people who don't watch Eastenders use; ie that the show is very abstract in comparison to real life situations yet tries to appear down to Earth; many of the plotlines are recycled with the odd variation in number of characters involved in a given plot ie the affairs; the acting is a lot of the time quite dire, many of the actors ham it up or use ridiculous body language and many a time the script appears poorly written, ie the conversations and dialogue seem absurd or out of character.

---

Feel free to add the information but how it stood was incorrect, there was also no source cited at the time for me to check. The two of them have since aired in the same position, and EastEnders won.

The fact that it was worded "since then EastEnders has not aired at the same time as its rival." seems highly unneutral to me (which is not suprising coming from Coronation Street's creator), perhaps it would have been better as "neither have since aired in the same time as each other"

If it is the case that EastEnders aired in the second half of Coronation Street then its probably best to state that as it has a clear advantage.

If there are more examples of my edits you would like to point out, I'll be happy to check them and see what I can do.

Also - It would maybe help to include some of this information on Coronation Street's entry for 'Scheduling', whilst trying to remain neutral.

User:EastEnders the great

Page 34 KB long...

Hey, since it is displaying the message the page is not the preferred article size do we need to cut part of it off into a new section?

I'm thinking the cast section should be removed and have it's own section possibly... as it is one of the longest sections which doesn't really add anything. The present cast is also listed at the info box at the top so is therfore just repeating the information.

Anybody else have anything to say? Thanks User:EastEnders the great

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of huge cast lists on wikipedia. I think that's the kind of thing we link to the IMBD. Since the Coronation Street article is a featured article, we should try and follow that as much as possible. The JPS 18:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I am working on a 'Characters of EastEnders' section as we speak (a bit like what 'The Simpsons' has done), as another article away from EastEnders but it will allow us to remove the 'Cast' section. --EastEnders the great 01:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

"Disasters" in Walford

Firstly, most of the content of this section does not relate to that of disasters.

DEFINITION: A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society causing widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses which exceed the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources.

A disaster by definition would be something like the terrible Kashmir earthquake in Pakistan recently.

Secondly, most of the content has or can be mentioned in the storylines section.

Thirdly, because of the size of the EastEnders article we really need to be strict on the content in it, this section in particular is repetitive.

This section is vague and whilst could be informative just adds to the weight of the article, something the article has slowly been moving towards is of a more contextual and historic, anything other than this, that is directly relevant to EastEnders should either be removed or have its own article created like many already have in the past - BUT only if these added articles are needed and again, provide useful information.

I feel that sections such as 'Disasters in Walford' and the rather plain 'DVD and Videos' (which I admit - I made! :P) are more suited to an ordinary website, we need to create something unique - and following in the example of the Coronation Street article, whether featured article or not should not be the aim. Most of the content of that article has become the slush that is just about cleared from the EastEnders article. EastEnders the great 01:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Scheduling Change

I've added the correct reason for the 7:00PM to 7:30PM scheduling change - the article previously (wrongly) suggested that it was in response to complaints about subject matter.

Opening image

What does 'which was originally developed by a series of pictures' mean?--StN 18:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

GA awarded

Things to address in order to go further (like FA) :

• Article needs better references (or if the Further reading section was used for the article it should be in the reference section).
• Trivia section needs trimming. Like #2 to #5 should be regrouped or placed in a subsection titled Reception under Viewership.

Lincher 03:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

45 KB Long

This article is massively over the suggested limit of Wikipedia.

Get it cut down asap. Ben 02:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In spite of anything, this article is simply too long. I don't feel I know enough about EastEnders to do it justice so it was a mere suggestion. I did not mean to cause offense, and can I suggest that you don't be so defensive in future.

Think about the cut-down, it would be worthwhile Ben 17:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been discussed before, and it's an ongoing task of our WikiProject. Sorry about before. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

History of Albert Square

Why are the house numbers missing in Albert Square. Were they knocked down during the war or something? Pauline's house is 45, but there aren't 45 houses in Albert Square?--SimonPeter 15:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a very good question. I did wonder, but I don't know why. Have a look at list of addresses in EastEnders and also the map of Albert Square. The map doesn't make much sense to me, as there are lots of numbers missing that have actually been lived in in the show. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

CHARACTERS TO RETURN?

Does anyone know if there are any plans for the following characters to return?

• Nick Cotton
• Sharon Rickman
• Lisa Fowler
• Melanie Owen
• Kat Moon
• Alfie Moon
• Grant Mitchell

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexWilkes (talk • contribs)

There are no plans for Sharon and Kat to return (this has been officially confirmed). It is unlikely that any of the others will return. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use Wikipedia as a forum. Talk pages are there to discuss the article, not to speculate about the topic. Thank you. Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 22:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter Beale

Why has the actor of Peter Beale changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.5 (talk • contribs)

Pass. Wikipedia is not a forum. Try Google. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"The influx of new characters is now nearing the end"

How do we know it's ever going to end? We thought it would stop months ago, but they kept adding more. Can this be re-written? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Episode count

I think we need a source for the episode count because it could so easily go wrong. Someone's changed it today and I don't know if they were correcting a mistake or vandalising. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This says that the 13-02-07 episode was number 1164, making yesterday's (08-05-07) episode (46 episodes later) number 1210... but this depends on whether they started counting again at one point, and is contradicted by this (Ian's 2000 episodes) and IMDb, which lists 2747 episodes on its (incomplete) list. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently when Eastnders started going 3 nights a week in 1994, the episode count was reset to 1 again. The last twice weekly episode (episode 952) went out on Thurs 7 April, and the following monday (11 April) EastEnders started at episode one again. They may have also done the same in 2001 when they added another episode, but I dont know for sure.Gungadin 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The internal numbering system used is one thing. The actual count of episodes is another. We aren't the BBC admin officers at WP so shouldn't really care about their internal procedures. What we should be documenting is the count of the number of different episodes actually produced. Format 00:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously! which is what we are trying to do...I have just given an explanation for why the sources quote different episode counts. How can you say we should not be concerned with the BBC's internal numbering system? If we understand their system then it will be easier to work out which sources are more accurate.Gungadin 11:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just meant, keep it off the main page. Format 21:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Overcount of Episodes

The figure in the article is too high. Many episodes have been shown multiple times and/or combined with other episodes as "omnibus editions", so there are episodes that have been double counted. The method used to count episodes used by the article shows how many times East Enders programs have been on the air by BBC, which would definitely overcount episodes. I doubt the actual number of unique episodes is much higher than two thousand and is perhaps even lower. 76.105.3.220 22:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that is the correct figure, see the above discussion. I used a source to count the episodes, and removed the omnibus editions. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's not the above discussion, it's in the "Omnibuses" section below. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

76.105.3.220 08:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There has not been more than 4000 episodes of EastEnders so why does this article say there has? It has jumped about 1000 episodes recently!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.179.223 (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Too Long

This article is obviously too long. I think it could be trimmed down or split up into multiple articles BadtoGood 23:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been, History of EastEnders was created, but none of the other sections are sufficient enough to create a new article. I think it is fine how it is at the moment, actually. Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 15:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Trampikey, but if we were to split off another section, "Viewership" is the longest. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cast list

Is the extensive cast list really necessary as part of the infobox? A link to the full cast list would suffice. The fussy list looks clumsy and is hard to read in the context in which it currently appears. Articles for Coronation Street, Emmerdale and Hollyoaks all make use of a link to another article, and I think EastEnders should too. Ben 14:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No views on the matter? The page is 64 kilobytes long (twice as long as any other British soap articles on Wikipedia - only beaten by Hollyoaks). I would have thought that the WikiProject would be looking to condense the article where possible. Surely this is a starting point? Ben 03:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I must say I don't like your provocative nature. Secondly, this article is much better than the articles for Emmerdale and Hollyoaks (and I think Coronation Street too, I don't think it deserves FA status) - so I don't think it should be compared to them as if they are on the same level. The infobox has always worked fine how it was, and the WikiProject is always open to suggestions, but you're going the wrong way about it becoming arrogant and causing a confrontation. Also, there's a guideline on Wikipedia called "Be bold" - which in a nutshell means "if in doubt, fix it" - I suggest you read that page. Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 11:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not being provocative, if you think I am then I apologise, but my suggestions are not to be interpreted as such. I grouped EastEnders with other British serial dramas because they are of the same genre - surely Wikipedia strives for uniformity? I am dismayed that you feel I am being so 'arrogant' and you may note that I was bold and edited the page, only for it to be quickly reverted. So, I made a suggestion on the talk page which was ignored for almost 3 days. You will also find that Coronation Street no longer has FA status, but I'm working on it. Ben 16:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion was not being ignored. Not everyone is available at this time of year. To be honest, I did think I had replied already. Although I've reverted your changes to the cast list, I only did so because I believe we should discuss it first. I think giving a link to the list of characters would be better, not only to keep the infobox shorter, but the list of characters is better maintained than the list here, which is sometimes left out of date. So I'm in favour of a single link. How about you, Trampikey? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for not adding a discussion to the Talk Page before editing, but I thought my edit was justifiable since other British soaps follow the same procedure. I understand how important your WikiProject is, and I was only trying to help the general appearance of the article and, of course, its size (I am a bit of a size-freak...no pun intended!).Ben 16:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean size queen :) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Goofs

the set designers and researchers really need to go into London a bit more. esp when it comes to study a tube map.. Tuesday 23 Jan esp of eastenders with the kidnapping of Ben shows Martin and Ben on the railway bridge, with 2 goofs, in the past its shown as a normal (nat rail) not a tube bridge so therefore it should of been overhead cables because that line by their current location is running c2c trains.

to further the goof, and the stupidity of the researchers/designers the trains that where (poorly) CGI'ed in seemed to be Northern Line trains instead of District Line or Hammersmith and city lines. they say that walford east is ment to be the real life Bromley-by-Bow station which is runs on the District line and H&C

also has any londoner notice that not one person in walford owns or even mentions owning an oyster card 82.24.175.199 19:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the CGI was good. I don't think it matters too much what train was used. Bradley Branning mentioned on his "lucky day" that he lost his wallet containing (amongst other things) his oyster card. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

well it wasnt realistic, being that close to the trains going that speed, (though it should be a C or a D stock train for the record) martin and ben would of been under the wheels.. also the line would of been at least part suspended because they tresspassed on the line at least one driver would of noticed. in regards to the oyster card. not even the kids have their free one when they go to school cos they take the bus.. just simple things really walford is ment to be part of east London yet it doesnt seem like it.. you dont even see the docklands from the horizon like you would in east London —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.24.175.199 (talk • contribs).

Yes they were too close to the train to not be affected by it. It's a soap opera, not a train spotters guide. Since when have soaps been realistic? There's nothing wrong with taking a bus to school. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

the point is not train spotting, it be like watching a movie about WW2 and they decide to put a harrier jump jet in or something, knowing the eastenders researcher they would. and you missed my point about the bus.. if you live (or been in london) you know that kids have free travel with oyster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.175.199 (talk • contribs)

It's fiction. Not real life. Get over it. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well they could have made more effort but in the end it doesn't matter. As for the Oyster cards, have we ever seen the children getting on the bus? Oyster cards work on buses too. If we haven't seen it we can't assume they don't use them. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

well the other goof with i pointed out was that it was a mainline railway brige not a tube brige.. because that VE day eastenders i think in 1995 Auther Flower sees a steam train go past the bridge. then it suddenly turned into a tube line.. tube and mainline trains dont share the same line in that part of london they only place that does in between Queens Park and Harrow and Weildstone on the bakerloo line in north london. however the Mainline and Tube line run along side each other east of the tube station but the bridge is not long enough and they should be overhead cables. if thats walford is meant to be. 82.24.175.199 13:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

May I turn your attention to the notice at the top of this page; "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Therefore, please shut up! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

wrong

"it is shown on RTÉ One at the same time as BBC One, which is also widely received in the country. This sometimes creates the situation whereby RTÉ completes the airing of an episode before the BBC (usually only by a few seconds, or minutes at most). This is due to the same scheduled start times for the episodes (also differs by several seconds or minutes), but different advertisement formats which causes one to always marginally finish before the other."

How can this be possible when there are no adverts on the BBC?

Ah, but there are - the BBC runs a few trailers between programmes DBD 21:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"bitches"

So, on this line: "Other recurring characters... are... bitches such as Cindy Beale and Janine Evans..."

Is the use of the word "bitches" not offensive in the UK? --Thomas B 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, awards for 'Best Bitch' are given out at soap awards, so I guess so. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ronnie and Roxy

Are we certain that these characters are definitely being cast? Has there been confirmation by the BBC? The announcement was made from a tabloid so I was wondering how reliable it was? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.244.3 (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

1. This is not a forum. 2. It has been in two tabloids on the same day, so it's very very unlikely to be a coincidence. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the two tabloids thing, but I don't see this being used as a forum, the anonymous user is just making sure our sources are reliable enough. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I am assuming they are Clive's children as no other brothers have been mentioned. I take it Clive was also the only one seen on the family tree on Ben's bedroom wall. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether he was on Ben's wall, but he appeared when Louise was renamed... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ben's wall has been seen a few times recently, perhaps we could try to get a screen shot, and see if we can enhance it. I bet Roxy and Ronnie aren't on it. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to get one. I know that Pauline, Michelle, Martin and Mark are on it for some reason - I think it's because Ian's related to them, because Phil doesn't know about Mark Jr. It was good when it was first seen though, we got Kathy's parents names, Peggy's parents names, and proved that the scriptwriters don't read the website; on there Eric's parents are listed as Harry and Eva, on the wall they're Robert and Sandra. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ratings

Have just added last Thursday's disappointing ratings. Shame on all you Emmerdale fans!!! Was just wondering something. Where it says "Since EastEnders began in 1985, at least one of its episodes have rated higher than any other British soap opera throughout each decade. This includes the 1980s, 1990s and so far the 2000s" what are the actual episodes? I'm guessing the 1980s one is the divorce papers episode. Apologies if it's mentioned in the article but I couldn't be arsed to read. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, EE got thrashed. I always thought Emmerdale was a load of pants, but if it's thrashing EE so much maybe I should start watching it.

I'm not 100% sure, but the episode for 1990s was probably Sharongate -25 million and 2000s was probably the night Phil revealed Lisa as his shooter - 22million.Gungadin 21:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Emmerdale is super dodgy, but when you get Linda Thorson and Susan Penhaligon in the same program this is what happens. Format 23:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Though, funnily enough neither of them were in Thursday's episode. It was really sad (made me cry), and I missed EE for it, then planned to watch the 10pm repeat on BBC Three, but fell asleep, so had to download it! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There's an omnibus, you know. Will be interesting to see what the ratings are for that this week. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 01:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the assertion that Eastenders is the 'most popular UK soap according to viewing figures' as a) It isn't - Coronation Street regularly trounces it and b) there were no actual figures to verify the claim. Smurfmeister 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EastEnders Radiotimes 3nights.jpg

Image:EastEnders Radiotimes 3nights.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Credits

Any ideas why the credits rolled the old way tonight? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess that they've been changed. I like it, easier to read. Another of Santer's good improvements I say! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It freaked me out and it's not easier to read when they squeeze it down into a tiny box, at least before they only squashed it to half a page! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

New guidelines, bbc.co.uk/commissioning. And this is not a Forum. AxG ^{@ ►talk} 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't using Wikipedia as a forum, the reason might have been worth mentioning in the article. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Omnibuses

If there's consensus not to count the omnibuses then somebody do the math to discount them from the total. I haven't the foggiest how many there have been. Matthew 14:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if as Trampi states they started recounting after they reached 1000 episodes... well I don't see that as a reason to discount a thousand episodes... Matthew 14:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See the #Episode count section above, and it's Trampikey, not Trampi. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone's bored, they can count all the episodes on walford.net if they so wish. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, so does anybody know how many episodes have been broadcast? The BBC seems pretty definitive. And does the website you state above have all the episode listed? Matthew 14:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should do. Apart from 1989, but that's simple to calculate - 2 a week for 52 weeks - 104 episodes. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's assuming no one-offs, no specials, no episodes missed for any reason, do we/they count hour-long episodes as one or two etc. etc. :-) Stephenb (Talk) 15:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is actually pretty confusing. Here's a point: is it actually needed? I think something in the lead stating there's been a shitload of episodes would suffice, yes? Because really, with a show like EE... is an exact figure really needed? Hehe. Matthew 15:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the source you quote is unreliable. For instance, it lists 3 episodes of "Terror of the Zygons" for Doctor Who in 1998! (http://open.bbc.co.uk/catalogue/infax/series/DR+WHO) Stephenb (Talk) 15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It should list all the air dates of BBC programmes, including repeats. Matthew 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is this suddenly an issue? We've never counted omnibuses. We've always counted hour long episodes as one episode. I calculated it once based on the number of episodes a week and the number of weeks and it was about right. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 16:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Should see WP:NOR then :\ Matthew 16:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh and that website lists spin-offs like EastEnders Sweethearts and episodes of EastEnders, which they are not. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 16:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It lists anything with EastEnders in its title. Matthew 16:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Then we can't use it as a source. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 16:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever gave you that idea :)? Matthew 16:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Also using a date like 21 March makes it seem like there's been no episodes since then. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 16:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Currently counting the episodes

Using info from the BBC source and walford.net.

So far:

• 91 in 1985
• 104 in 1986
• 106 in 1987
• 104 in 1988
• 104 in 1989

-Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going to do that but walford.net has an incomplete list. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bugger! On walford.net, when there are 2 episodes on one day, they're listed together. I've buggered it up already. Argh. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I used the list on the BBC thing to make this... 3335 episodes as of 23 March 2007. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Therefore "3381 (as of 31 May 2007)" as it was before, seems correct. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How many to 12 June then? This should probably be cited with something like: <ref>[..] (discounting weekly omnibus episode)</ref> then.

Tonight's episode should bring it up to 3388. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The omnibus doesn't count as an episode, it's a repeat, and therefore not an episode in its own right. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The episode count has jumped from 3000 something to 4000, it was nearer the actual number when it was 3000 something although it wasn't correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.24.185 (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ian Hunter's Use of "EastEnders"

Regarding the cultural significance of the television show EastEnders, it plays a prominent role in the song of Ian Hunter (formerly the front-man of the 1970s band Mott the Hoople) titled "Dead Man Walking (EastEnders)" from his 2001 album titled Rant. On an album that received favorable reviews (ranging from good to a masterpiece), this song is most often cited as being the highlight of this album/CD. The overall theme of the album is Ian Hunter's take on the United Kingdom at the start of the new millennium. Other songs that fit this theme on the CD include "Wash Us Away," "Death of a Nation," and "Morons." In Ian Hunter's song "Dead Man Walking (EastEnders)" he sings of aging, with the fear of becoming obsolete obscure and forgotten, all the while singing "this ain't EastEnders, it's the real thing." Regarding the song, Ian Hunter has been quoted as saying that he considers this to be one of his finest songs, which seems to be the consensus from both fans and rock music critics. In a 3 CD retrospective of his work, THE JOURNEY: A RETROSPECTIVE OF MOTT THE HOOPLE AND IAN HUNTER, Ian Hunter writes of "Dead Man Walking (EastEnders)": "This is brutal self-assessment. I like the sound of this. I like the piano." Full lyrics to the song can be found at: [[1]] For more information about Ian Hunter and his solo discography, www.ianhuter.com is a fine place to start.

75.6.227.233 03:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)William Innes

Fair use rationale for Image:Who's who EE.jpg

Image:Who's who EE.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Primary to High School

Is Ben Mitchell starting Walford High School in September? He should be because he was born in 1996, and he should start Walford High School in September because he was born in 1996, he is 11 years old, and 12 years old in 2008. 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot 04:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, but ages of youngsters in soaps are oftentimes rather fluid – SORAS DBD

We won't find out until September. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The answer was yes. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 00:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Bias

This article is so biased against the show!!! It totally underestimates the absolute success this show has received in Europe and even more in the US. You won't find one teenager in the States who doesn't avidly follow each episode of this British masterpiece. Ditto in Europe. Last year, a young american teenager from Duluth, Minnesota committed suicide because she had missed one episode and was terrified that her friends at school would ostracize her as a result. After it was made public that she had deliberately skipped watching one episode, protests and marches were organized in front of her parents home. People came in from all over the World demanding that the entire family be executed, especially the 2 month old baby whose fever had kept the girl away from the TV at the time of the show. Her parents decided to have the funeral cancelled. The girl's body was hauled to an undisclosed location in a remote part of Alaska, where it was left to the wilderness. Yes, my British friends, yes indeed, your show is THAT popular! Last night, a Palestinian woman was moaning on television about the Israeli military operation in Gaza: "if they don't want to give us food, medical attention, or even peace, I don't care. But, please, please, I beg them not to cancel the broadcast of the EastEnders. Allah the almighty, take my children, take my husband, but don't take that wonderful British show away from me". /end{sarcasm} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.207.252 (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of episodes

Can we get this locked down? Thanks, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Meaning what, exactly? ^anemone│_projectors 20:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There hasn't been more than 4000 episodes so it's complete and utter rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.98.81 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for that, but I think you are incorrect. If you work it out, there must be at least 4000. Actually, History of EastEnders doesn't record when it went to 3 and then 4 times a week, but those events occurred long enough ago to have since clocked up a significant number of episodes. Stephenb (Talk) 07:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hang on, its in the main article under "Scheduling": "EastEnders output then increased to three times a week, on 11 April 1994. EastEnders then added its fourth episode (shown on Fridays) on 6 August 2001". Simple maths should enable you to calculate that there must have been at least 4,000 episodes just from that. Stephenb (Talk) 07:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is even a article on episodes on here. In March 2007 it was up to the 3300s, so there's been well over 700 episodes since then has there? I would like to know where this 4,000 figure was plucked from in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.98.81 (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the citation in the article (which unfortunately no longer works) was added on the 12th June 2007 by an editor called "Matthew". Although it was briefly disputed then, the number of episodes at that time was determined from an official BBC source. Since then, the numbers have been incremented as new episodes have been shown. That all said, I have some doubts about the original source myself, which is now unverifiable. And I have been doing some simple maths since I my last bold post, and I can't make 4000+ add up either. Would any other editors care to comment? Stephenb (Talk) 12:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I know this is a few months old but, 700 from March 2007 till 18th April 2008. no way, there are 4 episodes a week, which makes 220 in 13 months, not 700. you know, its almost as if someone got out their calcultor put 4X52X22 which is 4576 and changed it not realising that there has not always been 4 eps a week.

In the 2 eps per week days there would have been 100ish eps per year and so on. It doesn't quite add up to 4000. That article on here about the episodes is surprisingly accurateish. This is the closest that matches up with a complete archive of EastEnders episodes that I know is in existence. So it's impossible for there to be more than 4000 given this archive is complete. My issue is that the episode count is now nearer to 5000 which is very unrealistic. ITV soap Emmerdale is soon to celebrate its 5000th episode and it's been on 5/6 times a week for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.98.81 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should remove it. Clearly we cant verify. We cant even use common sense to total the number, because there's been times when an episode is cancelled for whatever reason, or extra episodes are added or merged. Like Bianca's leaving week in 1999, where there was something like 6 episodes including an hour long one. For what it's worth, we know for certain that the 1,000th episode aired on 12 July 1994, Debbie and Nigel's wedding :) Gungadin 12:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I remeber during the 1990s sometime, they started to repeat EE from the beginning on the shitty "Good Morning with Anne and Nick". God knows how many episodes they showed, but these might not have been excluded in the count from the BBC programme catalogue.Gungadin 13:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This list is okay and could be trusted but it's out of date now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AnemoneProjectors/List_of_EastEnders_episodes It might not be 100% accurate but it's the nearest thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.98.81 (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that list is one out anyway, cos the 1000th episode is there as 11 July, when various sources say it was the 12, including an EE book I have and walford.net If it's not 100% accurate and we know it isn't, then I don't think we should be putting it in. Hopefully EE will do a big celebratory episode like Emmerdale is doing when they reach a certain number of episodes, which will be covered in the media. Or an official source will turn up that doesn't rely on us to do the calculations, then we can go on and count from there. Until then I dont think it should go in, but that's just my opinion. Gungadin 15:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing is it did used to say 3000 something episodes which was nearer to what it actually is. But all of a sudden it jumped over a thousand episodes. If you change it back someone bursts a blood vessel so best to leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.98.81 (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a count from walford.net and got 3651 so I changed it. It used to say 4876 as of 12 September if anyone wants to know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.156.204 (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Walford.net doesn't have all of the episodes though, there's a lot of gaps. Did you take that into account? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, Walford.net has whole years missing. I really think it should just be removed. If we cant verify it, then it shouldnt be on here. When the do a celebratory episode that's covered in the media, we will have a reference point to count from. Unless someone can be arsed to email the BBc help desk about it or something.GunGagdin^Moan 22:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

there are alot from the early years missing 1988-1992, but from the 1000th on July 12th 1994 there are no episodes missing, even if there is no description, it tells you what date the episodes were on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.156.204 (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Critique Section

Regarding the Paedophlia storyline involving Tony, Whitney and Lauren this article states 'This was the first time a British soap had addressed paedophilia.' This statement is untrue as far as I'm aware. Mandy on Hollyoaks was molested by her father and wasn't Sarah Platt groomed by that guy who also played the hairdresser in Brookside? Sinbad on Brookside was also accused of molesting a child although I believe this was later proven to be a lie. Therefore to say that no British show has ever addressed paedophlia in any of its forms is untrue and thus I feel this statement should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matty3891 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matty. I personally don't watch those soaps, so I don't know, but I have no objection to the sentence (or whole paragraph) being removed as it is uncited - you could do this too! Stephenb (Talk) 11:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Characters

hii dosnt Dot count as a character thats been there from the beginning? my dad says she does.--89.240.195.232 (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your dad is not a reliable source. Dot first appeared on 4 July 1985 and the first episode was on 19 February 1985, so no, she doesn't count. You can tell your dad that. ^anemone│_projectors 22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? I must say I thought she was there in the beginning too. Fallowside (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. You can see the book EastEnders: The Inside Story (among others) for how they developed and introduced the character Stephenb (Talk) 07:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember watching the show from the start, and she was not in it initially. Then, suddenly, having maybe having missed one episode, there's this strange woman in the Queen Vic sipping an orange juice and chatting with Den as if they had always known each other. Dialogue noted that this was Nick's mother: Dot had been launched into the show as if she had always been there and was soon a main player in proceedings. Format (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

She was always mentioned as Pauline's colleague at the launderette; until she first appeared, around episode 40 IIRC, many people probably assumed she was never going to appear and be a running joke (rather like Mr Popadopoulis, who did eventually appear, only to be killed off some years later and his son, the next Mr Popadopoulis, then appeared!). When she appeared as Nick's mother, I was quite shocked! Stephenb (Talk) 16:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The first Mr. Papadopoulos never appeared in the serial, but his son did. See Andonis Papadopoulos. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, Wikipedia is wrong :) I distinctly remember the first one appearing for an episode or so back in the late eighties, I think. But of course, my memory is not citable :) Stephenb (Talk) 06:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting that you say that. In your memory of him, is he a little bald man with greying sides, who looks kind of like Mohamed Al-Fayed? Because I have a memory of this Popodoppy snr too, but I was far too young when I saw the 80s episodes for my memory to be accurate. When i was trying to research the character, I noticed that walford web has him down as appearing in Jan 1990, but they also claim he was played by Lee Warner, who was the person who played Oppodoppy jnr. so that can't be right. In Jan 90, there was a lot of focus on the launderette, because Poppy sacked Dot, and then Marge made a petition and got her reinstated etc. But I've seen those episodes and I dont think poppy appeared, it all happened off-screen. Also, I asked someone who has all the 80s episodes, and was told they didnt think poppy snr ever appeared, so seeing as there was no evidence of snr appearing anywhere on line, I thought it was best not to say he did.Gungadin 11:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

He was bald, yes, thought I don't remember how tall he was. I *think* he was planning on closing the launderette down, and I'm pretty sure it was only one brief appearance. Can't swear to exactly when though, sadly. I have a few clippings from the eighties at home, which was when I was a really big fan, so I'll have a browse through if I remember tonight, he may be in a cast list... Stephenb (Talk) 11:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I overheard a radio program, funnily enough it was on one of the BBC Radio stations (you would think their reaserchers could answer the question), when they debated if Mr Papadopolous the owner of the launderette, has ever appeared in the program. Being an avid fan since th program started I struggled to recall on one occassion when Mr Papadopolous has actually appeared even if only as an extra like Winston the market stall holder, and was sure he never had. I looked here to be surprised he has allegedly, but still I cannot recall this so I looked on the Eastender official site and found this link http://www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders/places/ if you click on the Launderrete the pop up says the follwoing: Launderette: 3 Bridge Street The launderette is run by Dot and owned by the never-seen Mr Papadopolous. Heather also works here. Though on this particuliar topic there is lot of contractdicting information see the link here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0912518/ Maybe its like George Coles character, Arthur Daley, who referred to his wife in Minder as "her indoors", but was never named or appeared in the program, though I talk to some people who will insist she was in the program. Maybe someone can find a clip of easteneder on youtube or something like that to verify if Mr Papadopolous has acutally been in the program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.244.143 (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Eastenders > Characters > Discussion

Have made a comment on that discussion page regarding a clean-up, please refer to and let me know whether it's a good idea or not. Cheers. Sauber F1 fan since 1997 (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done only needed archiving.GG^Moan 19:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (on hold)

This impressive article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. Although it is generally of a high standard, in reassessing the article I found a few issues that may need to be addressed:

• Prose - this is pretty good, but the article contains a few short (one- or two-sentence) paragraphs that should really be merged into the surrounding text.
• Factual accuracy - in Social realism there is an unattributed quotation (para 2) that absolutely needs a cite. The first paragraph is rather speculative and comes over as editor commentary, unless citations can be provided.

• Links - there are a large number of dead or misdirected links in the article, many of them in references. I won't list them here, but running this tool will open a new window to display them.

• I have used the tool to fix a lot of the links, but not all of them. ^anemone│_projectors 23:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• The Fair-use rationales for some of the images may need looking at. Each use of the image needs a separate, detailed FUR; the template {{Non-free use rationale}} might be helpful here.
• ISBNs would be useful for the books mentioned in the Further reading section
• The External links section could do with trimming (for example, forums and fansites are not appropriate in an encyclopedia article). See WP:LINKS for more guidance.

   Done removed most, not sure if you meant to remove walford.net and walford gazette too, so i'm leaving them for now Gungadin 15:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think those two are fine - both are directly relevant to the article: Walford Gazette is mentioned in the article, and walford.net is a long-established site providing episode content. Great work, thanks! EyeSerene^TALK 16:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done ISBNs in Further Reading Stephenb (Talk) 16:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 13:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Update

Thanks everyone for all the work so far. There's a couple of days left on the GA hold, but not all the above issues have been addressed. I think the main remaining areas of concern are the first few paragraphs of Social realism, and some of the prose. The image FURs would perhaps be best in template format, but I believe there's enough information on the image pages to comply with WP licensing policy (User:BetacommandBot hasn't objected yet at least!), so we'll put that aside for now. I'll wait until the hold period is up before final reassessment. Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 09:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the first para in social realism should be chopped. It is unsourced, and you're right it does sound like editor commentary. I found this [2] which says: "EastEnders has generally carried a reputation for hard and gritty storylines. However it has generally remained a populist series and has generally avoided the even tougher storylines and dramatic heights of Brookside, which tackled issues in a more direct way. Brookside was decommissioned in 2003 after a twenty-year run, due to declining ratings. Brookside lead the way for more conservative soaps to follow: EastEnders, whilst gritty, required the creative input of Brookside's creators such as Mal Young to maintain its ratings."

But is that just a mirror of wiki, showing a much earlier version of this page? Strike that, it was from wiki, i just looked at the bottom of the page :) Gungadin 20:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That may be the best solution. For now, I've cut the bit that comes over as original research; I'll leave it here:

EastEnders covers a multitude of different issues within its storylines. However, EastEnders has, for the most part, remained a populist series and has generally avoided the arguably tougher stories of Brookside. Brookside had also launched as a social realist drama, leading the way for more conservative soaps like EastEnders to follow. Arguably, the difference between them was that whilst Brookside confronted issues, it was more sensationalist and EastEnders tried to maintain realism.

I've also been through and tried to reduce the number of short paragraphs by merging them with their surroundings. I don't think this is always possible, depending on the content, but hopefully the article doesn't seem so fragmentary now. EyeSerene^TALK 08:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

GA sweep pass

Thank you all for your hard work! I've now passed EastEnders GA reassessment, and updated the templates at the top of the page. Nice work ;)

For future development, making use of the templates on WP:CITET for cites and references would help to format them all consistently - this would be a fairly major task though (!), and is not in any case a GA requirement. EyeSerene^TALK 08:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Awards section

It strikes me this is too long - do we really need to know when EE was nominated? Does it all need to be in tables? The wins in the first set of tables is also neatly summarised in the last table. This section should either be abstracted to a separate article, have its tables pruned or re-written as prose (there's a lot of duplication - surely it could be summarised in sentences such as "EastEnders has won the XXX award 3 times (in 199x, 199y & 199z)". I might do this later today. Stephenb (Talk) 13:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I have removed all of the awards given to a cast member, character or crew member, since these were not awarded to the soap itself (which the article is about). Stephenb (Talk) 15:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have kept all of them in, but move the entire table to a new article called List of awards and nominations received by EastEnders. The other awards were for work done on EastEnders so they should still be listed. ^anemone│_projectors 20:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that that article already exists, only with a different name. I've moved it now. It needs cleaning up, with references. The table on this article can be removed, but we must make sure all awards on this page are on that page, with their references. ^anemone│_projectors 20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Schedule change

Does anyone know why they replaced last nights episode of Eastenders with Crimewatch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.247.207 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Rickman Jr. now has an article

Someone has created an article for this child who has never made an appearance. I'm seriously tempted to just go ahead and redirect it, but I thought I'd throw it out there for people to give an opinion. So....? Sky83 (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be redirected, Sharon Rickman perhaps? GunGagdin^Moan 18:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Current storyline (Early April 2009)

In the recent disasterous marriage between Peggy and Archie Peggy called Archie 'Archie Mitchell' but Peggy was Peggy Mitchell before the marriage. Can someone explain this please because I am confused. Thanks.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 14:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Archie is the brother of Peggy's first husband, Eric Mitchell (Phil, Grant and Sam's father). Hope that helps. ^anemone│_projectors 14:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a lot. More incest in Albert Square. It isn't the first time. :-)  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 16:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not incest, but yeah. ^anemone│_projectors 16:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Eastenders is the best soap i have ever seen.(sophie aged 20) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.26.104 (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Improvements

What can we do to imoprove this page? I think the criticism needs work, as do other sections. currently, it's like every single comment about the show has been included. I would like to weed out some of the less important stuff, or at least cover them by theme more succinctly. Not every criticism deserves mention in the article, and I sometimes think some things are added just so a character/actor can be linked to from this page.GunGagdin^Moan 16:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I hate this page. I doubt it should still be considered GA standard. I don't know what else we could do, but I think maybe splitting of the history of EastEnders page was a mistake. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have watched the show in sections (1985-1989; 1993-2001 intermittently). But when I come to this article to see how the show is shaping up these days (who are the main characters, has its style has changed to more comedy or less, is it still popular?) that isn't really clear at all. The page is disorganised and needs to be more sectioned-up. Format (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we get ideas from the Coronation Street article? I always thought that looked much neater than this one. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You think more sections, Format? What sections would you like to see? The article says an awful lot, but not an awful lot of it is particularly useful to people who don't already watch the show. I think copying the Corrie format may be an idea, but then, we'd have to sections on storylines by decade, which are possibly more appropriate for the history of EE article. What about sections that people like? Is there any? GunGagdin^Moan 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant that long current sections could be broken into smaller ones. I did make some such changes, and will look at making some more maybe. Just to break the long stretches of information into smaller chunks. Overall it seems to me the article switches between broad strokes descriptions ("the show features gritty realism") and specific descriptions ("the show started with an idea of clans, such as the one led by Lou Beale"). I think it could help if things specific to only one period of the show were more delinated from the big broad descriptions of the entire series. Format (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

ronnie is danielles mum and danielle dies

on archie and peggys after party danielle said to ronnie that she is her mum and danielle said she had a locket like hers and ronnie said show me then ronnie saw the locket then she ran and danielle got ran over by janine and danielle died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.99.81 (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Filming

Eastenders now looks "different" like it's shot on video or something else different? Anyone know anything about this (and able to add it to the article?) --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look any different to me but if that's true it needs verification from a reliable source. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cameron, I have to agree with Anemone, it also doesn't look any different to me. The only reason I could think of would be the programme changing to HD so I did google this for you, but I don't think it's possible for EastEnders to change to HD at the moment. Hope this helps you. --5 albert square (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Cameron, did you buy a new TV? :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

New title sequence

See Here - not much (if anything) is said about the title sequence is it? Should it be? This is a fairly useful reference about who designed it originally. Stephenb (Talk) 17:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The new sequence is here. Yes we should mention the title sequence as there have been changes to it over the years - and also the theme tune article needs updating as it's changed slightly. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Storylines of EastEnders

Not really to do with this page, but where did those pages go? Were they deleted? I don't understand why? They were so detailed, with so much you can't put on the main page, those kinds of articles are what Wiki is for in my opinion. AJ21SW (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

They were redirected to EastEnders because they were nothing but plot which goes against the guidelines about writing about fiction. They were also poorly maintained, with the 2009 section missing several key storylines. All the major storylines are included in character's articles. If you feel the articles should be recreated, I suggest it is done to the guidelines. The way they were, if someone had nominated them for deletion, we wouldn't have an argument to keep them unless they were rewritten. As redirects, we still have the history of the pages, but they're no longer updated. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)