Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders/Archive 6

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

Archived old talk page

Because it got to 47KB. The archive can be found here.

EastEnders

The article EastEnders is a featured article candidate. Again. See here.

EastEnders helpdesk

I am going to write to the EastEnders helpdesk to get some questions answered to aid the project; here they boast that that they can answer almost any question - so I want to know which questions you would like me to include?

The ones I have so far are:

  1. Can you send me a list of every middle name you have?
  2. What are Winston, Tracy, Amy, Lydia, "Big" Ron, Ray and Sid's surnames?
  3. Who played Chris, Helen and Peter Pappas, Kate Chole, Eleanor Trueman, Sean Andrews, Arjun Kapoor, Cindy Williams, Eamonn Flaherty Jr., Stan Dougan, Stephanie Watson, Jasmine O'Brien, Benny Heller, Lauren Whiting, Carol Jenkins, Jessie Williams, Flo Medeemey, Nigel Dean and Adam Steadman?

I don't have high hopes, but it's worth a try! Feel free to add to the list! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Good luck! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Clint's last name would be useful too, and would give us Rosie Miller's maiden name. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Main Article characters section

I notice that the character section from the main article is being cited as a reason why people are against it becoming a featured article. I agree that it is reading a bit like a list. It might simply be necessary to say that the cast turn over of characters in EE is quite high (particularly in recent years), and give a few yearly numbers of exits/introductions.

The stuff on family and clans is fine but I was thinking we should attempt to rewrite the rest of this section including more on character archetypes that have basically just been reused throughout EE's history. Like battleaxe/Matriarch, Bitch, tearaways, heartthrob, hopeless causes, victims, losers, long suffering women, hardman, survivors, petty criminals, villians and middleclass misfits/outsiders and controversial characters etc.

We should also perhaps say that EE has always tried to appeal to a broad range of people, and have always included ethnic and social minorities with varying degrees of success.

If everyone agrees with this then I dont mind having a go at rewriting it, so let me know what your thoughts are.Gungadin 20:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I'm gonna cry when I lose all my wonderful refereces in the list, though I agree the list is too much! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Go on, make Trampikey cry! The section has needed improving for a while, so go ahead. The referenced list was a nightmare for editing if you wanted to move names around, as I did once! So good riddence to it!! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article nominations

I have nominated Phil Mitchell and Pete Beale as Good Articles, are there any more you think I should nominate? I was thinking of nominating History of EastEnders - what do you think? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, can't do any harm Gungadin 15:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, what's the worst that can happen? If it doesn't pass, we'll be given some ways to improve it. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Adoptive family in family sections?

I don't think we should have adoptive family in the character articles' family sections, as we don't have step family, or uncles, aunts etc. who aren't blood related... so I don't think we should have adoptive family either, as they're not blood related... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 17:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's like saying we shouldn't include husbands and wives because they arent blood related. If someone has been adopted then they legally belong to the person who adopted them and they also take on the family name, so it's different from distant step relatives. Also if they are taken off they will continuously be re-added by users who dont know of the policy and it's already bad enough with people re-adding step-relatives and past husbands and wives. So for this reason I dont think its worth it. Gungadin 18:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
What Gungadin said. A silly suggestion. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I agree. There's no need to be bitchy, Anemone! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hehe. I think we should include everyone from EastEnders in everyone else's family sections because they're all related anyway. If that's not mentioned in the EastEnders article, it should be! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 00:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The Ferreiras weren't related to anyone else... neither were the Kapoors... or the Taverniers... or Dr May and Rob the wanker... Liam Butcher is related to everyone though! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 00:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The Truemans aren't related to anyone. And the Foxes, unless Denise and Kevin get married. If Dawn ever gives birth then that'll link May and Rob to the Millers, but then again the Millers aren't related to anyone else either... but seriously, I created a family tree linking everyone I could... it has all the Slaters, Mitchells, Beales, Fowlers, Raymonds, Hills, Butchers, Jacksons, Brannings, Wickses, Wattses... 166 people and there's several missing, and I didn't link anyone by casual relationships, only blood relatives, adoptions and marriages... anyway my point is that EastEnders is very incestuous and it's worth mentioning. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 10:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The only actual incest that has gone on is Kat and Harry and Joe and Mary (who are second cousins). -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and Clyde and Gidea, who are distant cousins as well... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Ian and Elizabeth Beale kind of as well. Although i don't know how far the romance went, it just mentions a romance on here. --Sparhelda 15:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Because everyone has relationships with everyone else and the majority of characters could be put on one family tree, as I described above, this is why I described it as incestuous, they're all distantly related (not necessarily by blood) in multiple ways. As for actual incest, Tariq snogged his half-sister, and if Sharon and Dennis had grown up together as brother and sister, they would not have been able to get married, despite having no bilogical connection. Sex with your cousin is legal so I'm not sure if that's termed as actual incest. I want them to have an actual incest storyline where a brother and sister who know they are definitely brother and sister (maybe Peter and Lucy in a few years time) have a sexual relationship just for fun with no emotions involved. I know everyone would think it's sick but EastEnders always comes close to incest but never actually does it (apart from Kat and Harry, as uncle-neice incest is illegal, but it was in the past, it was rape and it was just a totally different situation to what I'm thinking of). — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
May I recommend Brookside? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Not so sure about that Anemone. Trampikey mentioned Brookside there and it was that incest storyline along with a few other things which changes people's views on it an gradually lead to its breakdown. I suppose it would be an interesting move to see how it goes but i think there's a risk of critisism and people changing their views of the show. Corontation Street is the only soap that i can think of that hasn't dealt with any incest, even with distant cousins. Could well be wrong though. But lets just say incest is a very controversial issue.--Sparhelda 19:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I never watched Brookside so I don't know anything about it. Is that the reason why it ended? Perhaps it is too controversial to be on pre-watershed television and shouldn't be in EastEnders. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well it didn't end because of that specificly but there were a few rather sensationalist storylines like the first pre-watershed lesbian kiss along with that which made it lose alot of popularily as it was extremley popular in the 80s. It ended cause the viewers and ratings were going down but it seems the 90s storylines like the incest one killed it. If Eastenders were to do it I would hope it would be a new family that we know nothing about so it may seem less disturbing. I know you suggested Peter and Lucy perhaps but it would be weird considering they've been in the show since they were babies and seen them growing up together.--Sparhelda 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone mentioned Kareena and Tariq - they kissed but went no further. I never watched Brookside, but there was a brother-sister incestuos relationship - I think his name was Nat or something... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, you did mention Kareena and Tariq. The Brookside characters were Nat and Georgia Simpson, by the way. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Lou Beale is a character in EastEnders"

Is incorrect grammar. I say we should try and get this ridiculous rule changed, it doesn't make sense to say that a character who hasn't appeared for 19 years (and is dead!) is a character in EastEnders... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The incorrect grammar is saying he "was", the episodes still very much exist, as I see on UKTV Gold. If you can provide citation the episodes no longer exist though.. also see WP:WAF. Matthew 21:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The character no longer appears in the current continuity of the show, so is no longer in EastEnders, she is in EastEnders from the past, but as EastEnders is a continuous show, and continues to produce new episodes, she does not appear in the current show, and therefore is not a character in EastEnders, she's a character from EastEnders, so saying she was in is acceptable grammar as well. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Not appearing in the latest episodes does not mean a character does not star in episodes any more, ever wondered why on DVDs for movies, etc, it says starring, not starred? I'll let you figure it out.. Matthew 22:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The character does not appear in the current continuity, so saying that she is a character in the show is misleading, as if she appears from beyond the grave. The sentence "Lou Beale is a character in the popular BBC soap opera EastEnders, who appeared from the show's inception on 19 February 1985 until the character's death on 26 July 1988." does not make sense, as she is no longer in the show. We have never had a problem before with the way our 500+ articles are worded, as it is grammatically correct! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, and it makes perfect sense to me. Matthew 22:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
We're talking about a continuous series, not a film, she is no longer in the show. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes the character is, the episodes exist, repeats air, thus the character is. Matthew 22:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It is is, all works of fiction ARE present-tense..Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 22:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
But in a work of fiction that has been going for 22 years - the whole 22 years cannot be the present, especially as it runs in real time, unlike a one-off show (for example) without a specified time setting. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The Autons haven't appeared in any new stories of Doctor Who since 2005, "were" they an enemy in Doctor Who, regardless that the episodes still exist? Matthew 22:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they were, as they do not appear in the serial anymore. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, Dr. Who isn't the best example to use, as there have been two distinct incarnations of it, and it doesn't follow a set time pattern, as EastEnders does. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Trampikey on this, I think because EastEnders is set in real time, it should be considered to be more like news events where the past is the past, rather than episodes of Lost or Desperate Housewives. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 10:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Images

The image on Robbie Jackson doesn't illustrate what Robbie looks like properly... it's a more comedic picture than anything. Also, the picture on Ian Beale's infobox is a picture of Adam Woodyatt talking to camera in the square, not of Ian... (Sorry, I didn't know where to post this, so I came here...) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

lol, do you think you are possibly being a bit too picky? Gungadin 20:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Well in the fair use rationale it says that it illustrates the subject of the article, which the Robbie one doesn't do acurately, and the Ian one illustrates Adam Woodyatt, not Ian Beale... (OMG, I've taken over from AnemoneProjectors as the cratchety old man!) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I've uploaded a new Ian one, but I don't have any episodes with Robbie in (I don't think) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I do think you are perhaps being a little pedantic. The robbie image shows what Robbie looked like, albeit with highlights, but it's still what he looked like. all characters change the way they look throughout the course of the show. It's still illustrating the character, so the fair use rationale is accurate. More importantly it was the clearest image of Robbie I was able to take...But...I have since managed to take a more recent one, so I will upload just for you ;) but I might keep the other one of him in the article somewhere, to illustrate him in his younger days. The Ian one was due for a change anyway, as he no longer has a skinhead.Gungadin 21:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
lol thanks :), Do you think the one I uploaded of Ian is OK? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeh it's fine, I hadnt noticed how old Adam Woodyatt was looking until I saw that pic. The robbie one is done too.Gungadin 21:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
OMG, I've taken over from AnemoneProjectors as the cratchety old man - well, somebody has to as I'm not going to be around much and I don't know how long it'll be until I can edit on a regular basis again. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
And talking about Robbie, did you know there's more information about Wellard on Wikipedia than there is on Robbie Jackson?! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Wellard's better. And he's been there longer! Come back soon AP! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Wellard's cuter! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

lol, I would agree with that. I went to a club in Watford once and Dean Gaffney was there trying to pull every woman in sight, including me. He is alarmingly short, which surprised me the most, titchy even. (hope you come back soon too AP).Gungadin 23:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But you went home with Wellard instead? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Well he tried it on, but I was otherwise engaged with Ghengis.Gungadin 23:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I prefer Betty myself. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You can't beat Terrence! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

GA nominations

I think we should get as many EastEnders articles to Good Article status as we can this month! We already have EastEnders and Pauline Fowler as GAs, with Phil Mitchell, History of EastEnders and Lou Beale nominated... do you think there are any more articles that could be nominated? Pete Beale failed because of the tone of two sentences and the lack of online sources, so be on the lookout for articles with as many online sources as possible and a good narrative... I'm going to look through all the original character articles, but do you (I know I'm just talking to Gungadin) think there are any more I should nominate?

So April 2007 - WPEE GA month, hopefully! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeh I just noticed the Pete one had failed and to be honest I think some of the assessor's reasons were a bit naff. How can he say that the main reason Kathy and Pete's marriage broke down is not relevant to the character's bio, and that we rely on episode summaries in the article!! Of course we do, because its a television character, lol. I suppose that sentence about Pat and Den etc could be more formal, but it's a nightmare trying to be succint with that plot, as there was so much that needed to be said. I'll have a go at cleaning it up soon and finding more sources.
I think the only articles that have a hope of passing GA are the heavily sourced ones, which includes sourcing the storylines section unfortunately. None of the other pages have sourced storyline sections, but if we choose which ones we think have a chance then I can work on sourcing them one by one. I notice Sue Osman has been rated a B, so she might be one that we can look to promoting. Other than her Mark, Michelle, Arthur, Den, Angie, Colin and Barry and the other originals are possible candidates, because they have OOU sections. I also did some OOU sections on some of the 1989 characters, Trevor Short, Paul Priestly and Julie Cooper. They werent huge characters, but i dont suppose that matters. When you get a chance have a read of them and let me know which one you wanna try to promote and I will do the sourcing. I agreem it would be nice to get as many as we can promoted. Does EE have any featured articles yet? Maybe we could work more on the Pauline one and try and get that promoted at some stage.Gungadin 21:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the reasons for failing the main article at FA were a bit naff too. I'm sorting that out tonight and re-nominating it. I would suggest a peer review for Pauline, but (as seen here) peer reviews are useless! So tonight I'm using the reasons for the previous failed FA to improve the main article. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm done with the main article. I can't believe how virtually identical the popularity and viewership sections are! Have a look and see if I can improve it anymore before I re-nominate it! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Didn't they suggest in the last FA that the online section be removed? Gungadin 13:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes they did, I'll split the good bits into other sections. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 15:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I was the reviewer of the article, and I was informed of this discussion. I did not fail it because of "because of the tone of two sentences and the lack of online sources" I failed it because in the end, 90% of the article was about in-universe stuff. Yes, some of it is important, but there was some really minor stuff there that was mentioned for several sentences. Look at Homer Simpson, which is a GA. Admittedly, the article has fallen into bad shape and could easily lose its GA status, but it is a good mix and has a small in-universe biography without going into major specifics. I am a veteran of working on TV related articles, and I know that articles that are comprised mostly of what a character did in specific episodes aren't GAs. Also, the prose was lacking and I merely cited an example. You shouldn't blame the reviewer when an article fails as a GAC, you should listen to suggestions and fix them. -- Scorpion 15:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
EastEnders relies on storylines. Without storylines, there would be no EastEnders or no Pete Beale, so the article needs to have information about the storylines he was involved in, and as he was in the serial for 12 years, ther is, understandably, a lot of things to mention! I think it's fine that storylines are mentioned - especially as the article has an out of universe explanation, which is brilliantly written. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
No one meant to offend you Scorpion, and we appreciate you taking the time to grade the article. Overall you were constructive and pleasant with your criticisms, which is also appreciated. We have already mentioned above that we will take them on board and change the article where you suggest. What we said really wasnt meant to be a personal attack against you. However we are entitled to feel that your opinions are wrong on some of the things you mentioned, just as you are entitled to feel our opinions are wrong. The character featured in the serial for 8 years. That is a huge amount of screen time. We try to give a comprehensive guide of the characters storylines during their stay in the programme, but we also miss out a huge amount of trivial data too. In this character's case the destruction of his marriage was a big storyline lasting several years, and it occurred because she was raped and he blamed her for it. Therefore saying that it isnt necessary to mention this is incorrect in my opinion. If you feel that much of his storylines were unimportant perhaps you are right (and I agree by the way, as I hated this character), but they are still the characters storylines nonetheless. Gungadin 16:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Gungadin puts it so much better than me, and she is able to work out how long he was there - I did my sums wrong saying he was there for 12 years, she was right in saying 8. I hope you don't think I was trying to offend, Scorpion, it is a great job you're doing by assessing thses articles, and I agree about the lack of online references. However, I disagree about the storylines, they are the most essential part of the article, as it shows what the character actually did during their time in the show. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
"the article has an out of universe explanation, which is brilliantly written." That is a matter of opinion. As for the storylines, they may seem important to you as you are a fan of the show, but while reading the article, I found that there were many parts that were over-explained. -- Scorpion 16:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
No offence Scorpion, but what makes his opinion any more or less valid than yours? We can argue that you are not a fan of the show, in fact you have never even watched it by your own admission, therefore you don't really have any idea what is important regarding this character's storylines. But this is all irrelevant anyway, as the article failed and we have already said we will change it per your suggestions. We havent contested your decision officially, so I dont understand why you feel the need to reiterate problems with the article here in a condescending way. Surely you cant be that bothered that we don't agree with some of your opinons?Gungadin 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with Scorpion too. Though I really appreciate the work that has gone into some of these articles, the plot summaries are much much too long. I would recommend condensing them down to 500-1000 words, and then linking to some external source that has more detail. I'd also recommend adding a "plot length" guideline to the WikiProject page, as we have at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas. --Elonka 20:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Lou failed too

Lou failed GA Talk:Lou Beale the reasons don't seem too difficult to fix, but I cant do anything about the appearance of the images, because the quality of episodes as old as this are generally quite bad. I have another image of Lou c.1987 I'll do some swapping around.

With regard to this tense problem, it seems we are going to have to comply with the present tense rule if we want to promote it. Maybe we can change the top line to "Lou Beale is a fictional character that appeared in the BBC soap opera EastEnders from 1985-1988", which would still infer that it is a past character.

Does the storylines section have to be written in present tense as well? This is such a stupid rule. It will sound so stupid saying "Lou dies in her sleep".Gungadin 14:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

AnemoneProjectors and I both agree that this is a stupid rule (see above), as EastEnders is in real time, as opposed to Lost etc. - the person who failed the GA nomination is the person who wants us to comply with this rule, which I am not going to do, as it is not logical or correct grammar to refer to something that happened 20-odd years ago in present tense. So if they fail for that reason, so be it, but I refuse to use incorrect grammar, even if it is the rules. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 15:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that it is a stupid rule, but changing was to is at the top of the article is not that much of a big deal, especially not if we use that example I put above, which is grammatically correct also. Lots of hard work goes into these articles and it's a shame that we wont get any recognition for that because we refuse to comply with policy.Gungadin 15:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
According to the rule, your sentence would have to say "appears" instead of "appeared". I'm not going to change any of the character articles. As you said, we put a lot of work into these articles, however, I'm not going to change them to incorrect grammar just to please policy nazis who obviously can't see that it's bad grammar and incorrect. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 15:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The rule needs to be changed for ongoing serials like soap operas.Gungadin 16:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does, but raising it would cause conflict, and you, me and the absent Anemone aren't going to get it changed, and if we raised it anywhere it would probably result in us having to change 500+ articles into present tense! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Big update

I'm going to update all the current character articles; so I need to have a checklist, so I'm putting it here - feel free to help me out!
= Up to date
= Out of date
= May be in need of an update

Character Done?
Ian Beale
Dot Branning
Pat Evans
Phil Mitchell
Peggy Mitchell
Lucy Beale
Peter Beale
Ben Mitchell
Jim Branning
Billy Mitchell
Charlie Slater
Garry Hobbs
Mo Harris
Patrick Trueman
Minty Peterson
Gus Smith
Mickey Miller
Bobby Beale
Yolande Trueman
Jane Collins
Darren Miller
Keith Miller
Stacey Slater
Jean Slater
Naomi Julien
Dawn Swann
Honey Mitchell
Deano Wicks
Bradley Branning
Kevin Wicks
Carly Wicks
Bert Atkinson
Chelsea Fox
Denise Fox
Libby Fox
Rob Minter
Max Branning
Tanya Branning
Abi Branning
Lauren Branning
Sean Slater
Janet Mitchell
Stella Crawford
May Wright
Preeti Choraria
Li Chong
Shirley Carter
Jay Brown

-Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ugh

this killed me! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC) And it doesn't even work! How depressing! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh that's a shame. I assume it's a family tree of everyone. That woud have been so cool. Gungadin 19:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I made one myself weeks ago, looks similar to that one, I think it's used the same software, but mine is maybe a bit clearer. But I can't access it cos my home comptuer's dead. I didn't put the generations together as a normal family tree as it would be too messy and also impossible as they're all mixed up anyway. I could attempt to recreate it. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 12:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Legg

Apparently, in What's On TV, it confirms his return, as well as new photoshoot pictures being listed under "EastEnders" at the BBC photo publicity site... do we take this as confirmation and list him as soon to return? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeh if it's on the BBC site then he must be coming back, but there's no real rush if you wanna wait for another source. Gungadin 23:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Navigation templates

Just because I want more navigation templates for EastEnders, especially ones that can be put in articles for past characters, I've created a bunch. I like them. Should I create them? Take a look at my sandbox to see what I've been up to. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 15:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, I like them too. It will be handy to have all character links in one place like that.Gungadin 23:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I like them. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I've created those ones and am adding them to articles now. Feel free to rearrange the order and add any people I've missed off by accident, or even create other navigation templates :) — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 14:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Worth creating? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 00:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think they're all worth creating actually, although I wasn't going to do small ones. Maybe don't create them if there's only three names on the top row? I forgot the Hills one would have Ian and his kids in it so that was bigger than I expected. It's a shame Denise didn't turn out to be a Trueman, as it's not worth creating a Fox template, and probably not worth creating a Trueman template (especially as Paul isn't Patrick's son). — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 00:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, I agree the top row should have more than three people. And we can't do a Miller one - I tried and it was just too fucked up, what with Mickey being Mike's son and Keith and Rosie never marrying... Also, Lou and Peggy look weird relegated to the "Spouses" sections! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 00:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I tried a Miller one too but gave up! I thought we could do templates for The Queen Vic and Scarlet, though I'm unsure who to include. See below for my Scarlet one:
As for Lou and Peggy... Everyone in the Beale template is decended from both Albert and Lou so she can go on the top line. Peggy is the same apart from Billy and Jamie... up to you. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 01:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but Lou doesn;t have Beale blood, so should be in the spouses bit. I don't like the idea of Scarlet and Vic templates... it's like overcategorisation - overtemplaterisation! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 01:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of Vic and Scarlet templates. I think we should make as many navigation templates as we can, so every article has at least one! Pat should have about 50. Ricky has the most at the moment. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 01:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think we should go overboard with it, not every article can be included just for the sake of it. Also, I think we should create Category:EastEnders navigational boxes as a sub-category of Category:Television show navigational boxes, and remove them from Category:EastEnders. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'm inclined not to create the Wicks one, as I can see it being constantly vandalised with people adding David, Carly and Deano. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting this one here until Dawn's baby is born:

-Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What would the Wicks one look like? I agree it would have wrong information added, although perhaps those people could be see alsos. I think we should create Category:EastEnders templates to include the infoboxes and stub templates. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 15:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
They shouldn't be alsos as they aren't related to the Wickses in any way. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
What would the Wicks one look like? I agree it would have wrong information added. I think we should create Category:EastEnders templates to include the infoboxes and stub templates. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh you did the Wicks one already. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The Wicks one is above, and go for it with the category! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. Don't think I missed any. Some of our templates weren't categorised before. Oh wait, I can think of at least two more... — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Storyline Length

--Sparhelda 21:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems we're going to have to decide on how to proceed with the character storyline sections. Several are being tagged asking that we reduce and the Pauline one looks like it might lose GA.

What are everyones thoughts on this? I wont bother doing any rewrites until we make a decision.Gungadin 01:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As suggested on the Pauline talk page, cut out the long winded sentences added by certain users (note that Dot's article needs some of that treatment *ahem*) but leave it mainly how it is, I think we could probably cut down and merge the "deception and reclusiveness" and "death" sections in Pauline's article, but I don't think they should be cut down as drastically as Elonka suggested, 500-1000 words simply cannot do justice to 22 years. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
500-1000 is a guideline, so if it goes more than that, it's not necessarily a problem, as long as it's tied in to real-world context. But when there's paragraph after paragraph of straight plot summary, with no reference other than "Episode X," I think that's excessive. The goal of the article should be to describe the cultural significance of the character, with links to outside sources which discuss this significance. The plot summary in a Wikipedia article is meant only to give an overview and context, not to provide a detailed character biography. --Elonka 14:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The things is, in the UK almost every plot on EastEnders makes headlines in the press, and i'm not just talking about episode summary, but critiques, reviews, interviews, spoilers and ratings are all regularly featured. It would be possible to site a press source for almost every plot on that page. The references which direct to episode summaries were used to prove that the plot happened in the way that we say it has - to prove no original research. If we didn't use those, then I believe we are required to give off-line refs in the form of episodes and air dates, as well as details on writers, directers and producers. Using episode summaries is a lot easier and allows others to verify that the plot actually happened.Gungadin 20:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the "Character background" section of the Pauline Fowler article is excellent. It summarizes the plot, and includes real-world context. I've got no problem with that section of the article. The problem is the "Storyline" section (currently at 4,500 words) which duplicates a lot of the information in the background section, and goes into excessive detail. In my opinion, that whole section could probably be cut from the article. If someone really wants the detailed plot, they can go to the BBC site. --Elonka 07:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, they can't as it's not on the BBC site. It can't be cut, it covers 22 years worth of on-screen, though I understand where you're coming from saying that some of it is duplicated. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the storyline section being cut out completely, it would certainly make the articles easier to write, though it might make them a little short. Please also remember that refs in text dont count towards word countGungadin 11:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with it. Characters rely on storylines, so the storylines have to be there as they make the character. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well i'm not too bothered either way, but we might have to change our rules following all this. There will be no point in people spending ages writing a detailed storyline section, if Elonka or someone else is going to tag the articles everytime. We cant keep fighting the overzealous policy-pushers forever (no offence meant), no matter how much we might disagree with them.Gungadin 12:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, we'll change them if they're tagged, removing the sections completely is not the answer. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of them have been tagged though, but they've just been removed. It's like with the Dot one we were planning on extending - there doesnt seem any point doing that now because it was recently tagged. If we set boundaries initially then people wont spend laods of time writing stuff, only to have it all deleted at a later date.

Personally I think most people who come to these character pages come to read the storylines section, but unfortunately the projects policy makers dont agree or dont care, so there's little point in going against them. well, I dont intend to anymore anyway.Gungadin 12:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

With the Dot one we planned to cut all of the crap added by Sparhelda and then add some stuff about her early days, like her baby dying, etc. I agree 100% that people come to read the storylines, and the "overzealous policy-pushers" (offence meant) don't seem to be able to get their heads round that. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. :( --Sparhelda 21:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

95-99

I'm about to start making the last minor list for 95-99, merging some of the characters we already have. I was planning on merging ones like Sue Branning and Jack Price. Before I do I wanted to check whether it's ok for me to merge them, because the family nav templates have recently been added. Would it be ok to just put the templates at the bottom of the list page? Gungadin 21:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just remove the template all together. We don't have the templates on Joan Garwood or Ayse Osman. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the templates don't belong on the minor characters pages, but the redirects can stay in the templates as they are. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A few thoughts

  1. Minor characters - why are they rated as high importance?
  2. Minor characters - can they be in alphabetical order so I know where to add characters?
  3. Trampikey still needs to add crying stuff to Tomas' article.
  4. Can we add somewhere that Michelle Collins won't allow her children to watch?
  5. The spelling "Covalenco" appears to be a guess. I would suggest "Kovalenko" as there are several people on Wikipedia with that name, but no Covalencos. A Google search gives similar results.
  6. Is is possible for discussions to take place here or on the talk page of the relevant article rather than on user talk pages?
  7. I can't rememeber the other thing I wanted to mention but if I remember it I'll let you all know. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 11:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. Dunno.
  2. Nope, order of first appearance like the main list of present characters.
  3. I do! Or you can just do it.
  4. Again, you can if you want.
  5. I googled Covalenco and I seem to remember it came up with more Ukrainian results or something...
  6. What do you mean? Who's been talking on user pages?

-Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps alphabetical order should be considered. If AnemoneProjectors is finding the current order confusing, then others who are less familiar with the show/project will find it even more confusing. I dont mind either way, but my only concern is that we dont know the correct dates for all the characters, so there may be errors in their order anyway.Gungadin 14:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It goes better with the article titles if we do them in date order. If they were in alphabetical order, surely we'd have "List of minor EastEnders characters A-F" etc. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm okay on date order for the longer descriptions, as long as there's a master alphabetical list somewhere that links to the proper pages. Otherwise it's necessary to go hunting through the different pages to try and figure out where a particular character is (as I was doing earlier today for the redlinked names among Pauline's suitors). --Elonka 22:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The master list List of past EastEnders characters is also in order of last appearance. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the "Covalenco" issue - Dot's bound to say it next week, so I'll put subtitles on and see the spelling from there. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm, she didn't. What we gona do about that now? --Sparhelda 21:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Deceased family

Is it actually necessary to say who is deceased in the family sections? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really. You wanna remove them all? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I just wondered what the actual reason was for saying they're deceased, it seems to be another one of those things that has always been that way and never been questioned. I can probably use AWB to remove them all, if we all agree that it's not really needed. I'm undecided actually. Need to know what others think. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The only reason it may be useful is for dead unseen characters who will never get their own article, or where someones death is not mentioned in the prose of any article, such as Colin Russell and his dead mum. I suppose it would make the family section less irritating to type out if they werent there. Im not fussed either way though.Gungadin 23:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually it was dead unseen characters that made me undecided. Perhaps we should keep it as it is then. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 10:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

New template

As you may have noticed, I created a new template for the external links. It was something I've been considering for some time but I actually did it today. It means that all the links to the character pages on the official site are up to date (since the official site changed) and the format reads the same on every page (i.e. "at bbc.co.uk). I also added the template to about 50 pages that did not have the external links! There are only two pages that need this template now but they have not yet been created, these are Rodney Morris (EastEnders) and Frankie Pierre (although Frankie isn't listed on the official website's a-z!). Just thought I'd let you all know this. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell did Rod Morris ever get a page anyway? Was he a minor character when the website was first made and they were all enthusiastic to create profiles or something? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Frankie wasnt exactly major either. She was so annoying. Funny that these nobodies get a profile on the BBC website and original characters like Naima and Debbie dont even get a mention. While we're on the subject of the official site, some of the dates they have for the characters first and last appearances are completely wrong. For instance they claim the Willmott Brown last appeared in july 1994, when it was feb 1992, and they claim that Mandy Salter first appeared in jan 1990, when she didnt appear until march 1992. Just thought i'd mention it in case anyone noticed the conflicting information.
BTW thankyou for doing all the infobox and link alterations AnemoneProjectors, that must be so boring to do.Gungadin 00:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that. Some of the first appearances are wrong, too - Alex Healy for one. Also, I got Alex's last date off there - can someone check it out for me? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes it was boring. I was logged into AutoWikiBrowser for about 10 hours last night, although I did have several breaks... — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 10:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, cheers btw. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Official website

The official website is annoying me. The news section no longer has old news stories so any that we've used as referenecs are no longer available, I don't know if current and future news stories will be deleted when they're old as well. Also the questions and answers section has gone, which we may have also used for references. Just something to watch out for. We use a lot of the news stories in the portal, so perhaps we should try to use other sources for that instead. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 09:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, in my opinion Digital Spy is the best source. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree or whatever source we find first, normally the official website is the last to be updated anyway! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 11:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. Ugh, Dawn's baby's going to annoy me having Unknown next to her name. How did you find out Dylan and Tyler Woolf's names? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
From the local news article, should be referenced in Tomas' article. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nipplegate?

Is it notable enough to put anywhere that Chelsea's nipple was visible in last night's EastEnders? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Only if you get a screenshot! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It was in today's Sun newspaper so I'd say yes actually. They had a screenshot. Where should it be mentioned though? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Family relationships

I recommend reducing the relationships section down to what's currently at WP:SOAPS. Meaning, don't list all the cousins and nieces and nephews. Stick to immediate family, plus grandparents/grandchildren, and leave it at that. --Elonka 02:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I obkect strongly to this. In a soap where complicated family relationships exist that some readers may not know about, the family sections are informative - espcially in close families like the Beales/Fowlers - people like Ian need to be listed in Pauline's family. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
If a relative is key to Pauline's storyline, then yes that relative can be included. I'm just against listing all relatives for no other reason than that they're related. If someone wants to know the connections, they can go to the "Family" article to see who's related to whom. Like The Beale/Fowler family article which does a fine job of listing the connections. --Elonka 10:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the family article lists less of the connections, but hey, I guess this is another issue my fellow WPEE members will flake and agree on, so what is the point in even arguing - it's obvious that the absolute need for FA status on this article is going to get in the way of any opinions that slightly go against the grain. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The information on her family could always be presented differently. It could be written in prose - saying things like... Pauline and her family were the main focus of the programme when it began. When the show started we were introduced to her mother, children, brother etc. Via tie in novels and spin offs the audience was introduced to harry, dora. her aunt was introduced in 1988 etc etc. we can specify who appeared on screen, in books and who has just been mentioned in passing - similar to what has been done in the Lou Beale article under Character continuity.Gungadin 13:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Like Trampikey i think its fine as it is. As has already been said its very informative and shows how so many of the characters on the show are related. --Sparhelda 16:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I also think we should keep it as it is. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Elonka is right here. We don't need to know Colette Flaherty is her grand-niece. Things like that become very crufty. We need to stick to immediate family relations. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a very minor issue. Whilst I do not personally like the family section (i find them irritating to type out), I dont see any harm in keeping it complete in the article for those that do like it. If we are going to list family, then why shouldn't the list be complete? Obviously some people are interested, so why shouldnt it stay for them? Someone may feel compelled to read about Collete Falherty because it is linked to in the article, so it serves a purpose in that respect. Otherwise it may just as well be removed all together, because a few extra names on the end is not going to make much difference in my opinion. It is only a very small part of the article.Gungadin 23:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The main principle here is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think it's reasonable to list immediate family (parents/siblings/kids, including adoptive relationships), descendants and ancestors (grandparents/grandkids), and other individuals who are key to an individual's storyline, but not all the nieces and cousins and in-laws. In terms of how to define if someone is key to a storyline, I'd apply the simple test of whether or they're listed in the storyline on that page. If they're listed, then they may be important enough to add to the relationships section. But if they're not in the immediate family, and they're not even involved in a major way in that character's storyline, then I don't think they should be listed on the page simply because they're "related." --Elonka 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, you said "I don't think they should be listed on the page simply because they're 'related'", but that is the whole purpose of that section. It is a list of relatives and the majority of them featured in pauline's storylines at one time or another. Also, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it's her blood relatives, not her neighbours, friends, enemies, gynecologist and chiropodist. lol
I've already expressed that I dislike the section, but I dont plan to impose my personal feelings on other users who clearly like it to be complete, because it isnt really important.
It appears to be an issue for two editors at the moment, and from the responses above it is clear to me that the majority of people are in favour of the section remaining in tact. Elonka, on the Pauline Fowler talk page you said to Trampikey "if you show that you're willing to give in on some things, then you get a better reputation as someone who's willing to work with the group, and then when another dispute comes up in the future, you may be able to call in favors, like, "Hey, remember when we did it your way last time? Well, how about we do it my way this time?"
I think on this issues it may be wise to follow your own advice so you can call in favours on bigger issues. Gungadin 17:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What do we do about this article?

Dirty Den and Angie. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete it? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
It's an OK article, and we've kept Shannis. Maybe it can be improved? Molfie needs to be deleted, by the way. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Probably should keep it then, I'll probably read it tomorrow. I found a guideline on supercouples earlier, it's Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Notable couples. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

AFDs

What does everyone think should be done about the three articles up for deletion? I was going to edit, but I dont know if it's worth it. Maybe easier just to recreate if they are deleted. There is some OOU stuff that can be added to the who shot Phil if we take it from the phil Mitchell article. I doubt it will be enough to make a difference though and it is already behind in votes.

As for the storyline articles, we could either redirect to the history in EE article and start expanding that article to cover the decades in less detail, including behind the scenes info such as production and writers, cast axings, major inclusions and only notable storylines. Or we can keep them as separate articles. Either way we will have to cut most of the storylines.

As for the Christmas article, could we just retitle it as a list of Christmas episodes? I notice that the user who nominated it for deletion contributes to this article List of Ben 10 episodes, which is just a load of plot synpopsis and the only difference is that it is called a list. Either he has severe double standards or plot synopsis in "lists" is ok. Gungadin 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree - he's now removing images with fair use rationales from pages, claiming that they're non-free... I've copied and pasted the three pages to my sandbox, so if they are deleted, the data won't be lost forever! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 17:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
They are non-free, but are used under fair use. Fair use allows us to use non-free images. I quite like the suggestions Gungadin has made. I was going to make copies of the pages if they were deleted (as an admin I can view deleted pages) but obvously there's no need to now. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
That particular user is always so keen to quote Wikipedia policy at people, but he doesnt even seem to be familiar with it himself.Gungadin 19:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoo, I'm feeling the love today. A few things:

  1. Recreations of deleted material can be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G4.
  2. The List of Ben 10 episodes article is another project I'm tackling, the aim with that particular article is to make the episode summaries shorter.
  3. The images I removed from Storylines of EastEnders (1980s) and Storylines of EastEnders (1990s) are unmistakably non-free - they are copyrighted by the BBC. Non-free media can be used in Wikipedia articles if "it contributes significantly to an article." The media "needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot." (see WP:NFCC#8). The pictures in the storyline articles don't really do that - they just look pretty.
  4. If you want to save the articles up for deletion, improve them. Give sourced analysis, talk about the impact of the work, and make the article relevant to the real world, not just Albert Square.

--Phirazo 22:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, much love. A few things in repsonse:
  1. Any recreated article will not merit deletion due to the fact that it will be recreated in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).
  2. Glad you are working on the Ben 10 article (which is solely contained of plot summary) instead of blithely nominating it for deletion.
  3. The images in the articles are being used to illustarte the text, not for decoration as you say.
  4. We are looking at ways to improve the articles and make them relevant to the real world, hence this conversation. Thanks for the belated tips though.

Gungadin 22:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And my two cents:

  1. As Gungadin said, any recreated articles will be improved first with the use of sandboxes, then recreated.
  2. The Ben 10 article - well wouldn't it be a shame if it got nominated for deletion before you could make improvements so that it conforms to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)? It seems like one set of rules for you, one set of rules for everyone else.
  3. The images do illustrate the text of the article, not just "decorate" it or "look pretty" - I'm pretty sure you're not familiar with the show, in which case how do you know if they illustrate the text effectively or not? It was a bit pedantic to remove them without discussing it on the talk pages first, anyway.

-Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 15:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Who are you quoting those at? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 15:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
You. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 16:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
How is WP:POINT relevant? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
In case you were considering nominating the Ben 10 article for deletion. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh no I wasn't - if that sounded like a threat it wasn't meant to - I was just asking the editor how he'd feel if it was nominated boefre he could make the necessary changes. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 17:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OMG this is bloody ridiculous, now someone's claiming that the births/marriages/deaths list is a copyright violation! (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in Dream Team‎) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what to say about that one. Stuff like this makes me want to actually give up on Wikipedia. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
lol, I cant believe this. I'm getting a little tired of fighting for all these articles.Gungadin 23:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
To explain: A list consist of plot events and nothing else falls under derivative work. That is what makes it fall into copyrights of the show itself. When you create a list that is purely about in-universe information, you are creating a derivative of the original work. This is why Wikipedia explicitly says that all articles about fictional people/events/etc should primarily be written in an "out of universe" tone. Listing an actor with a character doesn't change the fact that the list is primarily about what happened to the characters in the show, as if they were real people. They aren't, and part of WP:WAF is that all fictional characters should not be written about as if they were real, they do not get the same treatment like one would do if they were writing about a living person. A list of their fictional births/marriages/deaths doesn't negate the fact that (a) they are not real people (not speaking about the actors) (b) you are describing events of a television program (c) there is absolutely no third party sources on this page, nor real world content.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with User:Bignole) FYI, Ben 10 is not my cruft. My general issue with excessively long plot summaries is that they are unencyclopedic, but User:Bignole has a point - storylines on a copyrighted show are copyrighted, and we are trying to build a free encyclopedia. You might want to read up on derivative works. The tide of consensus is definitely turning against fair use. --Phirazo 00:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to know the difference between list of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders and list of Ben 10 episodes (or the hundreds of other lists of episodes that exist on Wikipedia). I don't think that's actually been explained yet. Wikipedia is full of plot summaries. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 11:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
As an Admin, you should know that just because some people get away with it (for now) that everyone should. The only difference between the two pages you listed is that one has longer prose. They both contain non-free material, the death/marriage/birth list just doesn't have enough to justify what it is doing, which is supplying a derivative work of the source material.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
So if we wrote more, it would be justified? That can't be right. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 12:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A list of major plot points is not justified. Talking about how "marriage"/"birth"/"death" affect the show is. Why? Because to do that you would need third party sources that discuss what usually happens with a "marriage"/"birth"/"death" on the show. It isn't about singling out every event that occurred, but about discussing it as a whole, in an encyclopedic manner. For instances, some third party source might note that every time there is a birth on the show, that there is a death that follows. Or, every marriage results in a divorce 3 days later. I'm making this up, but the point is that you would discuss it together, otherwise there is nothing that says the network that owns EastEnders can't stumble across the page, say "hey, that ruins our show, it's providing a free alternative to viewing what we created," and handing Wikipedia a lawsuit. Being non-profit doesn't save us from lawsuits when we violate copyrights. That is why there is a fair use doctrin in this countries copyright laws, and why Wikipedia set up its own fair use criteria. The idea is to protect against that sort of thing, but these "list of deaths" type pages, or episode articles that contain a 900 word plot and nothing else are ignoring those rules and putting Wikipedia potentially in front of the long arm of the law, so to speak.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so we write a few paragraphs of OOU stuff before each list then it's fine? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Well EastEnders isn't repeated and isn't available on video or DVD so if someone wanted to know what happened in past episodes, they certainly couldn't watch the show to find out. So it doesn't "ruin" the show, as there is no "viewing what we created". — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 12:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I still don't believe that keeps it clear of copyrights, since the show is still under copyright. Maybe if the copyright was gone (which would be based on the age of the series, and I don't believe the show is old enough for the to possibly take place. Like, Night of the Living Dead fell through the cracks, and isn't subject to copyright laws, because it fell into public domain. Why can't the information be merged into "Storylines of EastEnders". It's much easier to justify it in there, because you could add a nice "Reception" section to discuss the cultural impact of the show, and any major (not minor) events could be mentioned in there. You could also have a section of information containing what it took to create the show in that decade (i.e. production-esque information). The fact that you cannot view the show doesn't change the fact that it is still copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignole (talk • contribs)
Lol, because the storylines articles are up for deletion... well one of them is anyway. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 12:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

They are up because they are nothing but plots. You could turn them around easier than that list, by doing what I just told you to do (which is provide out of universe information from third party sources).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the plan. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 14:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Then I say either hurry up, or save any relevant content, work it up in a sandbox with the suggestions made and then recreate. Then merge (if it hasn't already been deleted) any relevant birth/death/marriages into that page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
OMG! the christmas article was deleted despite having an 8-3 keep consensus. What was the point if they ignore the consensus, they may as well have just speedily deleted it and saved the bother. surely this will just set a precedent and tons of television shows that just contain plot summary, such as lost, smallville and family guy will all be in line for the axe.Gungadin 01:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to explain this on the List of deaths/births/marriages. AfD's are not votes, they are discussions. THe "keep" "delete" is only meant to articulate what your comment is saying, incase what you argue isn't clearly stating what you think should happen to the article. There can be 100 "keeps" but if they don't actually provide any true rebuttal to the arguments for delete (that means more than just "it's a great list" type comments), then a page can be deleted, even with the "deletes" out numbered. Sometimes it isn't done that way, it really depends on the admin that is closing the debate and what his/her interpretation of an AfD discussion is. Bignole 01:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for the explanation, i hadnt noticed your comments on the List of deaths/births/marriages page. I have never seen this happen in an AFD before and I dont agree that admins should get that much authority. Seems like an abuse of power to me, but that's the way it goes i guess.Gungadin 02:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, that was the way it was designed to be, but I agree I don't recall ever actually seeing it go that way. The reason is isn't meant to be a "vote" (though it turns into that for mose AfDs) is because you have some people that aren't registered coming in and going "keep" or "delete", and stacking the votes. If an Admin simply looked at the bolded text and made a descision based on that, AfDs could (and do) get skewed into certain results, both for and against the article. They're supposed to read through it (though overly long ones are probably a hassle, but it comes with the job I guess) and decide on a result based on the discussion not the bolded text. Although, I would assume that if an AfD had 200 "votes" on it, I'd probably simply count votes myself, but I'm not an Admin and don't wish to be one. Bignole 02:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, everyone feel free to edit it in my sandbox to add real world stuff! I agree it's a slight abuse of power. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 08:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would probably have closed it as "no consensus" if I was into closing AFDs — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 10:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that might have drawn more criticism since you edit the page, and voted in the AfD. Bignole 01:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I know, and if I was into closing AFDs, I wouldn't close ones that I'd commented on. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 15:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox problem

I'd like to propose a change to how the infoboxes are currently being handled. I see that right now, the guidelines are to include the name of the current actor in the infobox, but include the years for the entire stretch of the character's run. In my opinion, this is confusing. For example, at Martin Fowler (EastEnders), the infobox makes it look like the one actor has played the character for the entire run. I tried adding the other actor's name to the infobox, but was immediately reverted, so I'm bringing it up here. In my opinion, either the name of the other actor(s) should be added to the infobox, or we should add the years of the current actor's run to the box, so as to make it clear that they haven't been the only actor in that role. --Elonka 22:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If we had to choose one of those options, my choice would be for all actors to be named as I don't believe it would be right to remove information. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be OK to have all the actors in order, but not with dates beside their names in the infobox - that can be written in the article lead - if we have names and dates, infoboxes (for example) like Ben Mitchell (EastEnders) and Peter Beale will get too complicated/(what's the word I'm looking for... I'm dead on my feet...) jammed up (is that what I'm looking for?) - I mean it'll have too much junk cluttering it up. So yeah, to summarise my views - actors in the ibox are fine, but not with dates by their names, as it looks too cluttered - the dates can go in the lead. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Trampikey. And fortunately we have the characters lists to easily see which characters were played by more than one actor. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
So has this proposal officially been put forward then?--Sparhelda 04:25 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there no "previous_actors" field? Stephenb (Talk) 09:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
No, but maybe that's an idea... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this has been officially accepted by the project now as nobody has been reverting changes (that's the proper definition of consensus!), not sure about a "previous_actors" field, it might look funny. Just remember to add an image caption if there is more than one actor listed. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

List of pets in EastEnders

How is this article encyclopedic? It seems like an exercise in listcruft to me. --Phirazo 23:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be merged somewhere? Some of the animals are as important as some of the people. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 12:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as this list is probably going to be deleted, can't we just merge the list into the past and current charcter lists, but have a subsection for the Pets at the bottom separate from the humans?Gungadin 22:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Or we could change it into more of an article like the minor character articles, with a section, ibox and writeup for each pet... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We could do, but in most cases we dont have anymore information to add apart from what was already on the page. Wouldnt it just be speedy deleted? I wouldn't be opposed to this if you think it will be allowed, but they might say they should just be included into the minor character lists.
A separate article could possibly be made for Betty. I was reading that Wendy Richard demanded a Cairn, so there's real world stuff to add, and she had several storylines such as getting run over etc. The only others that could be extended are Frida, Terrence and Ghenghis. The others hardly featuredGungadin 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Genghis has more storylines coming up so could get his own article. I think Betty and the others should be created too. By the way I voted to merge with the owners' articles in the AFD but we can still give some of them their own pages. I just think the page will be deleted and we need to make sure the animals are still mentioned on the right pages. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode coverage

The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles. There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements. Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Wikipedia:Television episodes. We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page. After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles. See: Wikipedia:Television article review process. We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage. Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, how is the clean-up on the Storylines of EastEnders articles going? --Phirazo 17:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Fine thanks.Gungadin 12:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
So why have the only changes since the AfD closed are a removed image and a merge from "Who Shot Phil?"? Where is the real-world context and sourced analysis that was promised in the AfD? --Phirazo 17:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh please! You seem to be under the impression that we are answerable to you. Let me just clarify that we are NOT. For your information, I am currently working on a rewrite of the 1980s storylines, which is in its early stages here. I'm sorry if it's not going quick enough for you, but I also have an education and a social life to maintain, so it will get done when it gets done.
Seeing as i'm the only one who's attempting to alter the articles, it looks like you will have to put up with a slight delay. Alternatively, you can do some research and actually edit one of the pages yourself. I think that would be slightly more constructive than spending your time criticising. We dont need supervision from a pseudo-authority figure here. Try helping to improve articles instead of ordering others to do it for you.Gungadin 19:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, don't get dictatoral towards us, do it yourself and stop trying to supervise us... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 07:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Why only keep the improvements to the article in userspace? --Phirazo 04:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Because I want to. I can't be bothered to justify myself on this, nor do I need to. It is much more practical to do major rewrites in userspace before publishing, but don't take my word for it, write something and see for yourself.Gungadin 14:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
On a related note, the reason I haven't (and won't) edit the Storylines articles is I think the inherent concept of the articles goes against WP:PLOT. I don't see the point of improving articles I think should be deleted. --Phirazo 16:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see! So you won't edit the articles on principle, yet you're more than happy to harangue other editors to do so, even though you claim their content goes against Wikipedia policy. hmmmm! You havent seen the finished rewrite, so you dont know if the content will go against wikipedia policy anyway. We may decide to merge and include aspects of production etc
If you have anything productivce to add, such as suggestions on things to include, ways to make the articles better, then we would be happy to hear from you. But you seem to come here just to be condescending and imperious.Gungadin 18:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm giving you guys a chance to prove me wrong. If you can find sourced analysis on soap opera plots, go for it. --Phirazo 02:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't need you to give us permission. You're no authority figure who can boss us around and act like a tyrant! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 08:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to not "boss you around", I'm just asking how all the improvement that was promised in the AfD is going. I'm sorry if it came across that way. Besides to be a "tyrant", one needs power, and I'm just another editor. --Phirazo 22:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll also throw in some constructive criticism, while I'm at it. If you are going to add things like the creator's intent with certain storylines, popular reaction, behind-the scenes information, etc., you should add sources on that information. --Phirazo 22:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Err thanks. We've been editing a long time we know about the need for references. The article will of course be referenced before it is published. At the moment it is a draft and I choose to include the references after ive finished writing it. Gungadin 23:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_EastEnders/Archive_6&oldid=1086856495"