Talk:List of EastEnders characters/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

DCI Marsden

Why does DCI Marsden Page keep getting moved to Past Characters? She hasn't officially departed as she is a Recurring Character. For example she has appeared in 2001 to 2003, 2009 to 2010, and now she is back in 2012 and she is not a recurring character? I have removed her from past characters section back to recurring characters as she appears every now and then in storylines, so can anyone explain why the page keeps getting moved to past characters?. Prime47 (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see -

#Recurring list - i've been bold!

Bleaney (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes but didn't she say that she will watching Phil until she finds a weakness in him, She also suggests that she will pull the Mitchells apart as soon as Phil makes a mistake.

So she still may come back in the future. Prime47 (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes but then so could anyone. We have to try to keep the recurring list to a practical minimum otherwise it gets too large. In the case of Marsden, yes she said she was watching him, but the case is closed against ben and she says something like that every time Phil escapes her clutches. She may never come back again! Bleaney (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Previous actor(s) field?

Naming previous actors who have played a character is very useful, but the field looks rather bare with only a few characters, namely child characters, only having more than one actor play them. Would it not be more useful to have the previous actors mentioned in the 'Actor' field and maybe use the third column for durations? The durations could be useful in showing how long a previous actor played the role without having to go to check all the articles. I have made a list on my sandbox if anyone wants to have a look.[1] Oh and I am new so don't attack me for making a suggestion. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That could actually work. I know we've rejected the addition of durations in the past, but why not? This could do with more debate really. –anemone projectors– 12:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently GSorby liked that format too - [2]. The only problem I have is the duration is supposed to be the character's and that seems like it lists the actor's durations instead. - JuneGloom Talk 14:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

True, it might be better to go with the character duration, but then would we know which actors are present and which are not? –anemone projectors– 14:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I like it, I always say that durations look untidy on a list of characters but this one is quite nice. I made a few alterations to it so it's more consistent and takes up a bit more whitespace. And AP, just check the actor at the bottom (chronologically)? George^Ping! 15:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone, thanks for keeping my proposal in mind, I know the durations should be for the characters, but the reason I added the actors durations instead was a way of keeping the previous actors on the list, yet still maintaining the actors credit, like for example, Lucy Beale has been played by Bywater only since 2012, yet the character duration of 1993-2010, 2012 might seem misleading. More debate on adding the duration page, whilst still keeping the page tidy, would really help. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The list would definetly improve with this field added, the 'previous actors' field is a bit bare looking with only a handful of characters recast, also like the idea of the actor durations, as it makes it less vague as to who played the longest. Reli source (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like were getting somewhere with this idea! I am glad! I've made my own draft here and as you can see, I've made some alterations and resized columns and whatnot so it looks quite tidy. People are liking this idea then? Well done Livin'InAGhostTown, very good! George^Ping! 22:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks GSorby, not bad for my first time on here. I think your alteration works well. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

GSorby's list highlights the problem of having the durations referring to the actor. Amy Mitchell no longer has a duration because no one knows when her new actor first appeared. Yet we do know when the character first appeared... - JuneGloom Talk 22:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I see, but was Amy not always played by the same child? Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Amy was played by twins but we don't know who plays her now. I think the duration should be only for the character, as this is a list of characters, but it would be ok to combine the past and present actors into one column. I've been working on the list of cast for ages and that has individual cast durations (but only for cast members who appeared notably). –anemone projectors– 12:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I've solved the problem, though I don't know how aesthetically pleasing it is. Check out the tables here. - JuneGloom Talk 20:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

JuneGloom that list is perfect, the character duration is actually better than the actor duration. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me, that's what I wanted to see really. But should we do it for departing, returning, future sections too? What about the past character list in the same format? –anemone projectors– 13:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The past character list would look good in the proposed format, I would be happy to help you guys out as the list is a lot longer, the cast changes section is a tricky one, the departing characters will already have their durations on the present character list, but it may work for returning characters as they are taken off the past character list when a return is announced Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

So is this change going to happen? Reli source (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(undent) I think it should. –anemone projectors– 12:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Would it be worth posting a link on the project's talk page in case others want to comment? - JuneGloom Talk 13:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want, but I feel that this page has more watchers than that one. We already appear to have a consensus. –anemone projectors– 13:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

How are changes like this decided? Is it by a vote? Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey. We do not vote - but we have these type of dicussions and see what the general consensus is.Rain the 1 20:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That's nice and fair I think, the general consensus seems good, am I right? Also I made a proposal for the past character list if anyone wants to review and discuss it. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Durations?

Should a duration column be added for the amount of time a character has appeared. It would be more convenient than checking the article and other soaps eg Coronation Street have one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.179.232 (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Plus, should Helen (the lady who works at the Minute mart) be added onto the Extras list s she appears from time to time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.179.232 (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Durations are currently being discussed (#Previous actor(s) field?). I saw this Helen lady last night but didn't know her name or that she'd appeared before. If she's become a regular extra, she can be added. –anemone projectors– 13:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed, Helen is currently commented out, probably because we don't know who plays her. –anemone projectors– 13:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Helen has appeared in the soap since 2010 but i can't find an actress for her. 81.20.179.232 (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

She's probably never been credited, which is probably why she's commented out. –anemone projectors– 13:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Durations (rebooted discussion)

I think we should put a durations field in the past and the present characters section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butler97 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't. George^Ping! 08:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, durations would work well on this list, a lot of people seem to have been interested in going ahead with the idea, but discussion on the matter appears to have stopped. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Seconded, it appears to have stopped, even though the general consensus seemed to be in favour of it Reli source (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I genuinely believe the article would look much better with the duration field, as the previous actors can be moved into the actor field, and therefore the third column would look less bare. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree and although slightly off topic, the past character list looks very amateur and would also benefit from having a column format. Reli source (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully some of the more senior members like AnemoneProjects and Bleaney can continue the discussion and we can then go on to improve the list format. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I have merged this section with the prior discussion as it's the same thing. I was basically just waiting for someone to go ahead and made the changes, as I thought we had agreed. –anemone projectors– 13:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, since the discussion has been open for a while and no objections have been raised, shall I move the tables from my sandbox to the article? I like the format, so I think I will implement it at the Neighbours cast list too. - JuneGloom Talk 15:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be bestLivin'InAGhostTown (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty, it's been done (though I did edit conflict with LIAGT). - JuneGloom Talk 23:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Table now looks completely messy and silly. What an awful change :{. Arsenalfan24 (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

How does it look messy and silly? I think it looks neat and sensible. –anemone projectors– 10:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Neat and sensible? Janine Butcher's field for example is stretched because of previous actors being listed, likewise with Lucy Beale and Ben Mitchell, and why do you need a duration field anyway? The page is called 'present characters' therefore the list consists of characters who are currently in the show. If people want to see more information about the character such as duration then they click on their name surely? And the fact Ian Beale for example is at the top, emphasises that older characters are listed first.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

(undent) Well yes that was basically why we never bothered to include durations before, but so many people seemed to want them and it's probably quite helpful as a quick reference. The cells aren't exactly stretched imo. The list is still of present characters and having durations doesn't take away from that fact. We always said that people can go to articles if they wanted to know durations, but seeing them all here, as I said, is a quick reference and an easier way of doing it. –anemone projectors– 10:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Not surprised people want them seen as every other soap does it, doesn't mean we have to follow like sheep. I'm not too fussed, what's more annoying really is the stretching of the field. Lucy Beale and Ben Mitchell's fields for example are definitely stretched and it does not look neat in comparison to characters like Tamwar etc. Arsenalfan24 (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Not every soap has durations in the cast list. I doubt this will be the only objection to the change, despite the discussion being open for a couple of weeks. Unfortunately EE likes a good recast and in some cases that leads the cell to be bigger than others, but I still think it's a neat table overall. - JuneGloom Talk 10:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think we're doing it because other soap pages here are, otherwise we'd have done it long ago. And the cells are neat, it's just like merging cells in Microsoft Excel. The only other way would be to have the "previous actor" column back, but I still think it's neater this way. –anemone projectors– 11:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason it wasn't done ages ago was because there was no major desire for it and because of some opposition for it. I can see that from GSorby who obviously contributes to EastEnders a lot. The point about not every soap, I understand that, but most of them do including Hollyoaks, Home and Away and Coronation Street, so users seeing that will influence their decision for other soaps to adopt it. I'm pretty surprised Neighbours doesn't, it will only be a matter of time. Arsenalfan24 (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

GSorby lover above ^. Hi, I do like the new tabe, however maybe strecth it a bit to the right, as it seems a bit squashed, not taking the whole page. Another thing, for returning characters their dates are not incuded, so mayeb add them to future, (Joey would be 2012-), returning (Poppy (yay) would be 2011, 2012-) and departing (Afia would be 2009-12). Good work June, but would prefer if the rows were longer. :) — M.Mario (T/C) 15:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the tables are a bit too big now and the cast changes section looks odd. - JuneGloom Talk 16:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ew at the use of centering. I think that ought to be changed back to the characters being right-aligned lol.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. - JuneGloom Talk 22:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Just an idea - witht the characters who have had previous actors the duration could be seperated to the duration of that particular character. It would still have the full duration and since the gaps are usually when the actors change it wouldn't affect the ordering. It's jsut an idea.BionicMK Talk 00:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Return and departure dates

Should there be a field in Returning and Departing Characters sections for return/departure dates eg Afia Masood (12th June 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.186.208 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think its a good idea, for convenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercyme22 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

not sure, but it would have to be incredibly well sourced. –anemone projectors– 14:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It is pretty basic and does not do any harm, just one reliable source usually cuts it.Rain the 1 16:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The soap movers table on the Digital spy website has all the departure and return dates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.178.34 (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

So is it possible to add these please? 81.20.183.13 (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is fine the way it is. George^Ping! 20:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think we should add this information. –anemone projectors– 13:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. I don't think it's necessary.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea for convenience Mercyme22 (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not just put the Digital Spy link as an external link then? –anemone projectors– 09:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Would be more convenient with an extra field as the digital spy link has alot of info from the other soaps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.183.95 (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

New characters

Why is information not included when sources other than the BBC report on it? I do not think you can remove sourced information, when the source states clear as day it is happening.Rain the 1 14:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

^ I agree, Especially as there a pictures of the actors!— M.Mario (T/C) 14:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We had plenty of sources that stated David Wicks was to return to EE, and yet we did not include him because we did not have 'official confirmation' from the BBC. Bleaney (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

See, proof that waiting around for the BBC to confirm a casting is poor judgement. Sometimes other sources get the exclusives. If they report it as 100% fact - why not just include it. If the source says "but there is no confirmation" - don't include it.Rain the 1 15:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course the beeb are not always going to give us news of comings & goings etc (if only they would!). And in this instance im inclined to include them as we have photos & actor names etc. Maybe we should be less 'tight' about waiting for the BBC. It certainly made our efforts with David Wicks look silly! Bleaney (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sure we are right to list these characters, but I have one comment. One source says Juliet Cowan is joining the show and another says Nina is a character, but neither source says Cowan is playing Nina. –anemone projectors– 12:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

But apart from Dennis Jr would we normally list these types of charactyers as 'future'? Surely they should be just added to the 'others' section of the 2012 list??? Bleaney (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not, they have real-world sources and it's far in advance, and well publicised. Most "others" only come from a list of credits. –anemone projectors– 09:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Poppy's duration?

She left in November 2011, and returned in 2012, regardless of whether she is staying long term or not shouldn't her duration read 2011– rather than showing two seperate years, it's not like Amira Masood, who left in early 2010, returned in late 2011, if Poppys durtion is to show two different years, then shouldn't that apply to characters like Janet Mitchell who havn't been seen in ages? Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes absoultely she left less than a year ago and now she is reappearing so the consensus on here I believe is that it should read 2011-.

One thing though: she is definately a recurring character and should be kept as that status unless we hear otherwise. Bleaney (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I have a feeling she's staying around longer this time. Just a feeling though, won't be changing anything. –anemone projectors– 09:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Without giving too much away, I suspect (and have it on fairly good authority) she will only be around for as long as Anthony Moon is, and as his departure is upcoming I think its fair to keep her as recurring. Bleaney (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

On the BBC website she's been moved to the present list, that is normally for regular characters. — M.Mario (T/C) 14:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That list is not a definitive guide. As I say, if she still is around after Anthony leaves I will be very surprised! Bleaney (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

But how long until Anthony leaves? You say you "have it on fairly good authority" - could you expand on that? –anemone projectors– 13:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have my contacts at Elstree! Anthony will be gone by September, I dont want to say too much more as I know some editors dont like spoilers. Bleaney (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Loads of people seem to have contacts there. Is it an "insider", like the magazines say? :-) Well, September is a few months away. This is going to be Harry Gold and Grace Olubunmi all over again, isn't it?! –anemone projectors– 14:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Or like before with Poppy, when we put her as regular cast, and then we got an actual source from the bbc that stated she was recurring (or supporting)????? That is the source we should use, and ok she has reappeared, but I think its quite obvious why she has been brought back. If by the end of September she is still appearing, then fine, lets have a discussion about making her regular. But until then can we plaese try exercising some caution on this list, rather than listing everyone and their dog on here? Bleaney (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit, although I do not have Twitter, I did look at Bright's account, and people were asking if she was returning for a longer time, which Bright answered that she does not no, and that they should contact the BBC Press Office. For now, keep her as recurring. — M.Mario (T/C) 17:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Scarlett not played by a person...

...but by a plastic baby doll. Source? I forget, sorry. Probably Inside Soap. Dunno what to do about that though. –anemone projectors– 13:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should put "prop" in the played by section? :) I always thought Gus Smith should have had that credit....GunGagdin ^Moan 18:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I made a change earlier without checking for discussion. Sorry. I don't think "uncredited" is right, as there's no one to credit even if they wanted to. I went for "None", which has been reverted, but perhaps "N/A" instead and a note below? U-Mos (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think "None" or "N/A" are good ideas. I thought it was ok when you put "None". Has Rainetheone been directed to this conversastion? I wonder how long the baby will be a prosthetic for. You're right though, we don't even know if she'll live. –anemone projectors– 13:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Changes Needed?

On the list it has all the regular characters, and is lited under the hading 'Present characters'. However arent the recurring charcaters and guest character also present? To make this more clear, I would add the subheading 'Regular characters'. Also, it has the section for guest characters. Woudlnt Ricky, Diane, Tiffany, Morgan be in there? I mean they arent regular characters, there guest characters, who were regular. 20:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, Ricky, Diane, Tiffany and Morgan might be making guest appearances right now, but they're still regular characters. The list says the recurring and guest characters are present, because they're under the "Present characters" heading, as subheadings. The regulars may or may not need a subheading of their own. I don't think it's necessarily needed. I don't think anyone has got confused before. –anemone projectors– 13:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul or Phaldut?

Hi, I had a question. When I first heard about the casting of Masood's brother AJ, it was announced in all the articles that Paul Sharma was playing the role. Now that he's about to appear, all the articles say Phaldut Sharma is the actor's name. I know it's the same person and Paul is just his nickname, but I was wondering if something happened this past month. I believe the original article last month on Digital Spy changed the name from Paul to Phaldut and everywhere else it says Phaldut. Should it be changed on this page and his actor page a well?

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a384798/eastenders-casts-masoods-brother-aj.html Just wondering. 65.94.244.110 (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)samusek2

Yes. He is credited as Phaldut Sharma (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ks4qx). I hadn't actually realised this. I'm happy to make the changes if nobody has yet. –anemone projectors– 13:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

when do we classify a character as recurring?

les coker is a guest at the moment, just wondering when/if he'll reach the criteria to be classified as recurring as he's appearing quite regularly lately.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would list him as recurring now. — M.Mario (T/C) 20:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont think any criteria have been agreed but I think the idea of a character appearing in at least 4/5 episodes was suggested. In any case i'd be happy for Les Coker to be classed as recurring. His profession alon means there is a fair chance he will appear again. Bleaney (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Morgan and Tiffany

Are in the 2nd episode on 23 July (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01l92z7) - meaning they haven't really departed since their last appearance. Don't know how they're being kept in, and if they'll be back semi-regularly for the time being, but what should we do? Leave as returning or move to present? –anemone projectors– 13:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep as returning. — M.Mario (T/C) 16:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Tough one! I think maybe we should just bite the bullet and class Morgan and Tiff as recurring, as we know they are sticking around. Hold fire with Liam though, I have sources that indicate that he is a different case... Bleaney (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Liam went before the rest of his family anyway, and didn't return for the wedding, which is why I'm not including him - he clearly has left for different reasons. I agree we should keep them as "present" (but not recurring because they are main characters, even if currently they appear on a recurring basis). –anemone projectors– 13:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, arent ALL child characters classed as recurring on here? Surely Morgan and Tiff should be, especially if the likes of Shenice and Sasha are, who are apprearing much more frequently and regularly? Bleaney (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought we made Tiffany and Morgan regulars because they are much more regular than other child characters. Am I wrong? –anemone projectors– 14:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm right. We considered them regulars. I went back to last November for Tiffany: regular. (Actually Morgan was recurring) –anemone projectors– 14:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well its a wrong decision. How the hell we can justify classing Tiff as regular when she is not even living in Walford AND Shenice and Sasha appear more than her currently (even though they are recurring)? I say keep ALL the child actors as recurring for now, at least until Tiff and Morgan return to live in Walford. Bleaney (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's representative of Tiffany's entire time in the series. She's been mostly regular, so we list her as regular now. Unless we list her as recurring now, and put in her article that she's been both regular and recurring, and put years like we do other things in the infobox. Then it gets complicated. Either that or say she's always been recurring. –anemone projectors– 14:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I say state that she has always been recurring. Lets face it, to say otherwise is original research. And as we list ALL other child actors as recurring I think its more consistant. I would be happy to review this again when Tiff returns to Walford to live. Bleaney (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been bold and listed Tiffany and Morgan as recurring. They continue to appear intermittently, so are the definition of recurring characters. I appreciate Tiffany was listed as regular before, but ive always thought that was a premature decision in relation to the other child characters we list as recurring. And as she is not regular at the moment it seems daft to list her as that. Of course we can review it when Tiff and Morgan 'return' to live in Walford later in the year. Bleaney (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. –anemone projectors– 12:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

They were also in the live segment, so we were right to do this. –anemone projectors– 13:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Should Amy Mitchell be moved to named extras?

Has she ever spoken a single word in the show? unlike Oscar Branning and Kamil Masood, who often say a couple of words, the latter being even younger than her. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We have a long standing a convention on here that child characters are automatically classed as recurring if they are the children of regular characters AND live on the square. Amy ticks both those boxes. And despite her lack of 'lines' (and i'm sure I have heard her speak) she has been involved in some major plots for someone so young... I say keep her as recurring. Bleaney (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep her recurring, for Bleaney's reasons. Extras are different to these baby and toddler characters. –anemone projectors– 13:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

OOU references for a few recurrers...

Hi guys. Does anybody know of, or know how to find some OOU info on Reverend Stevens, Ritchie Scott and Mr Lister? These recurring characters are stalwarts, but have no OOU info. While fairly recently arriving recurring characters do, like Les Coker and Nico Papadolpoulos. I have been looking myself but seem to always draw a blank. Can anyone help? Bleaney (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I would think Mr Lister at least has some reception, but it may well be in print. I wouldn't expect anyone to bother writing an opinion about Stevens or Ritchie, but there could be some info. Would be nice. Unfortunately I have none. –anemone projectors– 13:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I will look for Lister, Stevens may have some as he has been there a while, Scott... not so much. I will take a look. — M.Mario (T/C) 13:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way by "in print" I meant offline sources, newspapers and magazines. –anemone projectors– 14:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Small bit for Lister (I think) - [3]. — M.Mario (T/C) 14:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a quite a lot of source who credit Wilton's main role as EastEnders, Is it usefull though? — M.Mario (T/C) 14:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Harry left?

An IP just removed 'Harry Holand''s character Harry of the list of extras, and im inclined to agree with the removal. According to IMD he only appeared between 2004-2005 (which is probably wrong, that's just when he was credited), and EastEnders Wiki (not a reliable source, I know) uses the term "Harry Holand was an EastEnders extra", meaning has he died? I havent seen him for a while, and the likes of Winston, Tracy, Marie, etc, are all mentioned regulary. But then the problem i, if we do move him, where will we put him on the past list? — M.Mario (T/C) 07:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess so, but I thought Harry was one of the guys we often see in the background who never speaks. But unlike Winston, Tracey and Marie, even if he still does regular extra work there, he doesn't speak and isn't really a character - we should probably just keep the ones who sometimes speak and get credited there. Then again, if an extra starts to speak and get credited, it's good to know when they did first appear, like Helen and Luke who are commented out. Is Waseem still in it?! I know I saw Gaynor recently. –anemone projectors– 12:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Gaynor is still there. It's annoying, we could actaully put Helen then Unknown in the actor column? Harry, is a difficult one, it would be really usefull it we knew if they had left or not. Waseem, who? Ive never heard of him, shall I delve deeper, and try to find extra's actor/actresses, years and whether characters are no longer in the show? — M.Mario (T/C) 13:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can find out, do your best! –anemone projectors– 13:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Extra's that need adding, with list entries needed

I am rather busy at the moment, so anyone who has time;
Harry (Black, not sure about reliability) played by Harry Holland - In this news article from 2011, it says he still is a extra - may need re-adding. List entry needed. The source
Michael, played by Michael Leader - Appeared as the milkman since the very first episode. I also remember seeing him recently. There is a huge interview with Leader here. List entry needed to be added, as well as changing Tracey to not being the longest standing extra, but to the joint longest standing.
Glen James, played by Glen Cooper, who looks like this. Glen was the postman before Masood, but I have seen him recently in the pub.
Also, Winston first appeared in 1986, not 1985, as his list entry currently states. — M.Mario (T/C) 13:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Good work! I don't recognise any of them! Who is the tall old guy, who has been in it for ages and then suddenly became the milkman for about one episode? He's always in the pub. –anemone projectors– 14:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about this guy [4], if so thats Harry. — M.Mario (T/C) 14:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah no, I'm thinking of Michael Leader! It's ok. –anemone projectors– 13:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Harry Hickles

Yes, I think Harry Hickles will be appearing as Dennis, this proves this, but we have no sources to back this up, so we'll just have to wait. — M.Mario (T/C) 12:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Where did the information come from for Walford Wiki and all these forums to know? It may well be in the magazines tomorrow, so let's just hold off until then (or if another reliable source comes out before). –anemone projectors– 12:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Are these Characters True or Fake?

If you look on these links they will tell you Who they are but some of these people may not exist on Wikipedia.

Character	Actor(s)	Duration
Michael	Michael Leader	1985—
Glen James	Glen Cooper	Unknown
Harry Black	Harry Holland	Unknown

User:Quinser's 17:32 30 July 2012

Just because there aren't articles or list entries for a character/actor, does not necessarily make them fake. At the moment, those links go to other unrelated articles and need de-linking. When someone gets round to adding these characters to a cast list or creating articles for the actors, then they can be linked to the appropriate page. - JuneGloom Talk 21:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. These are real extras in EastEnders that Mario has worked hard to find out about. They should not be removed but also should not be linked, as they do not have articles yet, and any blue links will go to unrelated people with the same name. Michael Leader, for example, plays an elderly man who is seen in the pub all the time, and is usually the milkman in the series. –anemone projectors– 13:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I have an Inside Soap article about the EE extras from 1999 and it says Glen Cooper played Jim the Postman. The actor mentions that he was just doing general background stuff and then three years later he got the role of Jim. Has he since been given a different character to play? - JuneGloom Talk 15:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I typed it in, a this came up: [5], it says he is called Glen James but is known as Postman Jim...? What should we do? — M.Mario (T/C) 15:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that seems to indicate that Glen and Jim are the same character, so obviously he's been through a name change at some point. I'd just keep calling him Glen for now. - JuneGloom Talk 16:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Most extras have the same name as the actor anyway - Michael, Harry, Ina, Ron... but not Tracey and Winston. They seem to be the exception. So maybe we should go with Glen, and if we do a list entry, put Jim in there. –anemone projectors– 10:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note Glen Cooper started appearing in EE from 1989, he was given the role of Jim the Postman (later Glen) three years later. - JuneGloom Talk 15:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

~~Shall we say that his duration is 1989 then, or 1992? — M.Mario (T/C) 15:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)~~

The supposed return of Carly Wicks...

Hi guys. So we now have a source which suggests that Kellie Shirley will reprise the role of Carly Wicks for a short, dramatic storyline in september... Now I actually think this is highly likely... but sorry to be a ball-ache... but it hasn't been confirmed by the BBC or the actress herself... so should we actually use this reference as a reliable source??? I'm not trying to cause trouble for the sake of it... i'm just going by what we have used as a source 'threshold' in the past...Bleaney (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought the website was her official website? Is it? .. And as for the BBC confirming things, if another reliable source reports it as fact then we should use the source.Rain the 1 02:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that... but define a reliable source? We have excluded national newspapers before for not being reliable... Bleaney (talk)

You are right... it is Kellie Shirley's own website it seems... so I guess this is a reliable source??? Yet we exclude actor's twitter feeds etc for being a reliable source... i'm confused???Bleaney (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The closest to another source we have for this is Soaplife teasing "Whose estranged daughter turns up in the Square? Why has she come? And will her mum be pleased to see her?" Doesn't confirm who it is, obviously, but, you know. But this does appear to be her official website. Also, this, she was on TV confirming she was really on the phone to Shirley. –anemone projectors– 13:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The thing about Twitter is everyone's not always who they claim to be. But to be honest, if they are verified, I don't see why we can't use it. Upcoming albums use sources from Twitter... –anemone projectors– 13:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. All I want is some consistancy when we list people on here. Bleaney (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

William and Janet Mitchell

How about making them "present recurring" again, since they've appeared recently, and going back to the "one year off" rule? Especially as they are Billy's children, and likely to pop up every now and then. –anemone projectors– 13:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Bleaney (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

YAY! I'll do it then. –anemone projectors– 12:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A few questions about these two. 1. Is it really appropriate to have Janet as recurring again? Surely a spin-off appearance has no bearing on her recurring status in the main show. I assume from Monday that she was unable to appear in the live segment at the last minute for some reason, but fact is she hasn't been in the main show for over a year and there's no source that she will again. 2. Why have we removed Grace's surname from everywhere? The website might not use it, but the credits of Billy's Olympic Nightmare did. That's a good source if anything is. 3. Their first meeting with Lola. I didn't see this episode myself last year, but I'm very confused whether it took place on or off screen, and when it happened. At least one of the articles previously stated it happened in June 2011, which is impossible as Lola wasn't introduced until the next month. As the last dates for both characters then read a day in June, when (I believe) Billy was telling them about Honey and Jack's car crash, I thought it safe to assume that their meeting with Lola took place off-screen in July and clarified that in the articles accordingly. But now, according to an edit at Janet Mitchell, it wasn't off-screen at all? So were their last appearance dates just incorrect for nearly a year, and they were seen in July last year? U-Mos (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Responsding to the last part, I remember a social worker (Martine Brown's character) turning up, and Billy, Lola, Janet and William all sitting on the coach, I think it was part of trying to get Lola a good reputation or something. — M.Mario (T/C) 12:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Grace's last name was removed per a request from somebody, probably her family, regarding her privacy. So we are not allowed to re-add it. Her last name has been removed from the EastEnders website as well as here. The live segment was live, so not surprising Janet was unable to make it. But she was available for the Red Button stuff, meaning she's still likely to be available for future scenes. And as I said, she's Billy's daughter and that means she's more likely to appear than not. What's the harm in listing her along with William, who has now reappeared? Future appearances are likely to be together, so she's just as likely to appear as he is. –anemone projectors– 14:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with everything that AP has said. I think Wills and Janet hav earned the right to be classed as recurring, at least for another year. Bleaney (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info regarding the privacy request. Personally I feel there are two many "likely"s and "probably"s to warrant re-instating Janet especially as recurring, but am happy to bow to consensus. U-Mos (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent sources about the making of the live insert stated that 11 child regulars were due to appear - Janet and William included. Meaning they are still considered current characters. –anemone projectors– 12:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Marsden returning or never left?

Are DCI Marsden et al technically returning? As per the one year rule, surely they should just be added back to the recurring characters list? And yes, before people say it, I was one of the people who wanted Marsden taken off this list in the first place (dont shoot me!). I'm happy that she's back though. So should we class this as a return? Bleaney (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha! I'd be happy for the three characters to be moved straight to present, then again, people may be confused, and would probably like to see the confirmation that the characters are actually appearing again, especially Marsden, so leaving them where they are might be a good idea! –anemone projectors– 12:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to list them back as recurring, but i'm happy either way. Bleaney (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Bobby Beale/Shenice Quinn

I think Bobby may be old enough to be moved off the recurring list as I've noticed that he's become a more frequent character with more lines and has also a character profile on the EastEnders website. I'm not really sure about Shenice, but seeing as she appears as frequently as Tiffany Butcher (who has appeared on the regular list since 2008) that she maybe put on the regular cast list also, just some ideas! 92.25.97.192 (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree about Bobby, but not Shenice, she only appears now and then. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well Bobby hasn't really had any notable storylines has he. As for Shenice she has recently gained a profile but she doesn't really do anything. Both might become more notable in the future like Peter and Lucy Beale didn't really appear much did they when they were Bobby's age so wait a bit longer. --Anna2123456789 (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think either of them should be changed from recurring to regular. We put Tiffany back to recurring, because she's a child character. –anemone projectors– 12:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with AP, to be honest none of the characters with actors that age are allowed to feature that much due to child labour laws (though I do concede that the likes of Tiffany does seem to get more than Bobby). I mean Sasha has actually seemed to feature more than these two since her arrival, but even in her case i'd keep her as recurring. Keep them all that way until the character starts appearing as much as the likes of the next oldest characters, like Abi. Bleaney (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again but when would we consider them as regulars characters like Sasha etc she does appear more because of her age. So is there a criteria before they can be moved to regulars. --Anna2123456789 (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no criteria per se. We discuss a characters status, try to reach a concensus, and then if agreed, make any changes. I agree that Sasha is at an age that we considered Abi a regular, and she is appearing quite often at the moment. However, one major difference is Sasha doesn't actually live in Walford, which is why I would tend to keep her as recurring for now. Though I agree her status should be regularly reviewed. Bleaney (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Kim's duration?

Why is the duration for Kim Fox 2009, 2010- and not just 2009-? She returned to EastEnders in 2010 less than a year after her 2009 stint Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I don't get either.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

???

If you look at Tameka Empson's IMDB [6], it states she returned to EastEnders about seven months after her initial guest stint, and as she was not gone for a full year, then Kims duration should simply read as 2009- Reli source (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Undecided. She was a guest character and they decided to bring her back. But it would go witih what we previously said if we did that. –anemone projectors– 11:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I just never understand why if there are no missing years, why the years have to be so detailed, regardless of whether they are/were guests or not, it just makes the whole pane look messy. Reli source (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That was the agreement - if they were away for less than one calendar year, we merge the years. Then people disagreed as a character might have left in January 2009 and returned in December 2010, so didn't want to put 2008–11, for example, even though it's less than one calendar year. Amira Masood and Sonia Fowler spring to mind. I think people had trouble understand what "one calendar year" means as well. But I agree with you. We reached a consensus, then other people decided it was wrong. –anemone projectors– 12:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Recurring -> Regular?

I think Poppy should move from recurring to regualr due to the fact that the BBC has just published a "On set with... Rachel Bright", and the BBC do not normally do that for recurring characters. Thoughts? — M.Mario (T/C) 21:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I've always supported the fact that she was regular. I agree. George^Ping! 22:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope I still think we should leave it for a while, as I have previously stated, the word on the ground is the character is only back to help facilitate the departure of another, and as you pointed out Mario, on Twitter, Rachel Bright has stated she is not permanent yet. We have a source which says that Poppy Has always only been a supporting character, so lets leave her as recurring until she starts appearing a bit more and for longer. Bleaney (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bleaney here. We should wait and see what happens. Someone (can't remember who, might have even been Bleaney) said it was obvious why she was brought back, and although they didn't specify, I assumed it meant she wouldn't be back for long? –anemone projectors– 12:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Good news for me, bads news for others, but Poppy seems to be sticking around. She had her on On set with... (stated above), appeared in a IS photoshoot and said shes got a bigger storyline coming up. Lapinskas has already left EastEnders, so I dont think she is leaving with him, which leaves one option: Shes staying. :) — M.Mario (T/C) 20:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Omg yay!!!! Regular!! I love this character!!! George^Ping! 20:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Urgh! Hate the character, but it is looking increasingly likely she sticking around, though she's had no real storylines to speak of since she has returned. Bleaney (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute though Mario, We haven't seen the exit of Lapinskas on screen yet, and how do you know that Poppy's big storyline doesn't involve Anthony? I say stick to recurring as per the arguments above until its clearer she's regular. At the moment she's appearing about as often as Tracy! Bleaney (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys. Well it seems as though Poppy is sticking around. Sources indicated that she was involved with Anthony's departure, and I assumed that meant she would leave with him. However, it just meant her friendship with Alice, and Anthony is gone but Poppy is still there. I still wouldn't be surprised if Poppy does disappear again soon, but I would be happy for her to be classed as a regular if other people want it. If she does leave soon, we can always go back to classifying her as recurring,but i'd be happy to class her as a regular now. Bleaney (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to wait, she still seems like a recurring character to me. –anemone projectors– 12:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to wait, but I wont fight any more lol Bleaney (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Uncredited/Unknown

Sorry to be nitpicky, but Yasmin Masood is listed on here as uncredited, while Scarlett Moon and Lexi Pearce are listed as unknown. Surely they should all be the same thing? Which one though? Bleaney (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It should really be Uncredited IMO. Who plays the characters is obviously not "unknown" to the cast and crew - it is just us who do not know because they are uncredited.Rain the 1 02:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should be uncredited. Though when we find out who plays a baby, they remain uncredited! Scarlett by the way was played by a lump of plastic, but is now real. I guess we won't be putting that down on here though, right? –anemone projectors– 13:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sgt Heathcote & a couple of others...

I think Sgt Heathcote should be removed from here. He last appeared in connection with Alice's mugging, and that storylone had ended. Yeah, as a policeman who could always appear again, but so could a load of other police who have appeared in EE over the last couple of years, and if they all stayed on here it would clog it up.

Also, haven't Danny Pennant and/or Trish Barnes filmed their final scenes? Bleaney (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree about Danny, Syed and Christian are leaving soon, and he's not credited in any eps up till then. Trish... more doubtful, could appear again, not sure, again with Heathcote. — M.Mario (T/C) 15:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Heathcote is one of the characters who comes back all the time, so the 1 year rule should apply. Gary Lucy was contracted for 3 months but he hasn't been in it 3 months yet, that said there's no evidence he'll come back. But they did say 3 months. Trish has already gone well over the 10 eps we thought she'd be in and the storyline is still very much ongoing, so saying she's finished is a bit of an odd suggestion in my opinion. –anemone projectors– 16:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to keep Trish, at least as long as the Lexi care storyline is ongoing. With Heathcote, I thought we didn't apply the 1 year rule to police officers, social workers, doctors and nurses? The problem with these 'recurrers' are that although they could quite possibly appear again, its just as likely that a different member of their profession will appear instead (It's not like Mr Lister who is the ONLY market inspector, or Reverend Stevens who is the Main vicar of the local church, or even Les Coker who is 'the' local undertaker as it appears. With Danny, I think Digital Spy have confirmed he has finished appearing in this - http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a436909/john-partridge-hopes-eastenders-introduces-some-hot-new-gay-guys.html Bleaney (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we specified a type of character for the 1-year rule, we applied it to everyone unless it was obvious they were gone. Maybe for those types, we should reduce it to six months or something like that. Ah yes it does look like Danny's gone then. Weird that they said he was on a three-month contract then! –anemone projectors– 18:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think any police officers/social workers/doctors/nurses that don't have any personal character development should be removed from this list and classed as past as soon as the storyline their involved with is complete. We didn't give Gill Marsden a year or even sixth months, so I dont know why we should give it to Heathcote. Bleaney (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, Marsden is only brought in for specific stuff involving Phil Mitchell because she's a famous actor and the character is only after Phil! But the others are bit parts who can be brought in at any time for any character - they probably have a list of actors who have played cops and see who is available! –anemone projectors– 19:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, and they may never appear again. Believe me, if we list every Police officer, social worker, doctor and nurse, and keep them on here for a year or 6 months, this list will become large and misleading. Bleaney (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously not, because only one is listed right now. –anemone projectors– 20:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think for characters like Heathcote, where the actor is that known, we should have a one month rule, if they dont appear after that, off they go to past! Marsden would be an exception, as the actress is more high profile, and has a habit for ppearing for longer distances. — M.Mario (T/C) 21:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously so, because we have culled the sorts of characters promptly in the past. Im sorry but I dont know how you can defend keeping Sgt Heathcote, but advocate Marsden being chopped. Bleaney (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Marsden's storyline is over - Ben's been locked up and she has nothing to investigate. She doesn't do random crimes like other police characters do. What's the point of a rule if we don't stick to it? –anemone projectors– 21:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Can I be really stupid, and ask someone to refrain the rule? — M.Mario (T/C) 21:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is here. Basically, it's as Bleaney stated at the time: "The rule for ANY character that is listed as recurring - They stay in the recurring/guest section UNLESS they have not appeared for whole year. In that case they are moved to the past. BUT if they are noted to be appearing again after this they are listed as returning, then recurring again" –anemone projectors– 21:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually think I agreed to that to, so I will take partial responsibility. Here is my new proposal:

For instance, Heathcote appears between 3-17 November 2012.
We check the furthest credits we can until a month has past.
If Heathcote returns on 16 December 2012, it is not a month, so he is listed as recurring/guest characters
If Heathcote was to return on 18 December 2012, he would be listed as returning.
If Heathcote does not return before the 16th, he is listed as past.
If we follow this rule, it gives a good gap for a character to appear, but not to big, so that the list gets stupid.
Characters should only be listed if they either are appearing for a 3 eps or more, or there return/introduction has been publicised (i.e Tansy)
I personally think we should follow the Digital Spy cast list.
- 1) It is a reliable source, stops us from being accused of WP:OR
- 2) It is updated often
- 3) I think we should list characters like Shirley as returning, despite their temporary breaks

- Opinions, yes or no? :) — M.Mario (T/C) 21:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It all sounds very complicated. Why not just do what we're doing and discuss the removal of individuals, then once they're gone and we find out they're coming back, we list them as returning. I don't think we need to change our little rule, but as we've been doing, we can discuss them. I'll even agree to removing Heathcote :-) –anemone projectors– 21:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I dont want a huge change to the rules. I thought the 1 year rule only really applied to characters like Aunt Sal, Reverend Stevens & Mr Lister. The others were still up for discussion. I just think its daft to keep Heathcote on here, but as you have agreed AP, im going to remove him... Bleaney (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Though I will point out that Heathcote appeared in August and we removed him before he reappeared in October :-) –anemone projectors– 22:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I know, and I guess people like him may well catch us out every now and again, just like Jimmie Broome did. Bleaney (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely true. Phil did sack Jimmie after all! I think the writers/producers forgot and maybe Sian Webber wasn't available (or is Ritchie his criminal lawyer and Jimmie his family lawyer?) –anemone projectors– 22:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be the case, Jimmie generally deals with family law i.e. custody battles and divorces, while Ritchie seems to do the heavy criminal stuff. This would be realistic... if Ritchie is supposed to be a top lawyer, she wouldnt be wasting her time on custody battles. Bleaney (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That is what I thought - but still doesn't explain the fact that Jimmie was sacked! Just one of those things, I guess. –anemone projectors– 14:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm that Trish is still appearing [7] –anemone projectors– 09:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Tansy Meadow

Tansy appeared tonight (22 November). The article is semi-protected so I can't edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.202.49 (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Bleaney (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Clearout?

Should we move Marsden, Helen and Nico to past now? Marsden's kinda finished her storyline now, Nico too, and Helen most likely? — M.Mario (T/C) 17:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Tonight it was confirmed on-screen that Shenice isn't returning either --86.31.61.220 (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree about Marsden, Helen etc. I suppose an argument could be made to keep Nico for a little while, as he still is Manager of the takeaway place (as far as we know) but as Fatboy isn't working there anymore, we could easily never see him again. Bleaney (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Also I agree that Shenice should be classed as past. Bleaney (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Im going to move Shenice, Helen and Marsden now, but leave it a while before Nico goes, as only objection has been made for him. — M.Mario (T/C) 11:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. Nico was seen before Fatboy started working there, but I did think when Fatboy lost his job that it would be the last we saw of him. However, I think he's proven popular with critics, so could be back. –anemone projectors– 14:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Is someone going to do this? Bleaney (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I moved Shenice, Helen and Marsden, I think the discussion was that we should let Nico stay for a while. — M.Mario (T/C) 20:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Shall we just get rid of Nico now? — M.Mario (T/C) 14:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Tempting... but maybe we should wait a bit longer? I'm not sure. –anemone projectors– 12:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been just over a month since we last saw him. Fatboy is now working at the Vic, and doesn't seem to be following up his unfair dismissal. Nico's only other link is Dot, but she wont be back for ages, and there doesn't seem to be anyone working in the laundrette, which is another of Nico's families businesses. I doubt he will be back but i'd be happy to leave it until the beginning of October. If he's not listed for any forthcoming episodes by then, i'd say get rid of him. Bleaney (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably worth taking note of this. Abi and Jay are pictured in McKlunkies (or whatever it's called) so perhaps Nico shall appear then? Only a minor idea though. George^Ping! 13:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact, that might be Nico in the background (although I think the face is a bit chubby) George^Ping! 13:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's Nico, and surely we have whose credited in this upcoming episode already? If EE are showing characters in McKlunkies without Nico, I think we could assume he wont reappear. Bleaney (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's Nico either. I don't think we yet have that full week of credits. Can we wait until we do before we remove him? If he's going to appear, that's likely to be when he does. Having a non-Nico in the background makes it seem like he won't be there, but I'd rather be sure. It's not long to wait! We have Monday's credits, but we don't know which episode that is, do we? –anemone projectors– 13:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Some very sensible person (probably me) just asked "Is Nico going to be working in McKlunckys, or have we seen the last of him?!" on the blog! Unlikely to get an answer though. –anemone projectors– 13:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Still no Nice, shall we give him the chop? And what about Trish Barnes and Jenny Gunn? Also, shouldn't Alexa actually be on this list? Or have we seen the last of her?

Nico can go. Jenny can go. Has Trish been in 10 episodes yet? She was in it yesterday, the storyline is very current. Alexa should have been on this list, as well as her mate Chantelle. I think they're gone now, so Alexa can go to the past list. –anemone projectors– 16:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Just checked, Trish still appears next week. –anemone projectors– 16:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Aykut Hilmi's Twitter account confirms that he is back at EastEnders. — M.Mario (T/C) 16:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Specifically this tweet –anemone projectors– 17:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Although it doesn't mean he's filming for EastEnders... probably is though –anemone projectors– 17:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The dodgy thing about clearouts as we can be wrong. Jimmie Broome, for example, appeared this year and is appearing again this year, but we already moved him to past. So I've moved him back to present. –anemone projectors– 12:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I was about to clear Alexa out (sure she's gone as she was only brought in for the storyline where Lola loses Lexi; if she returns we can put her as returning), but she wasn't even on the list! –anemone projectors– 10:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well we now know Alexa is returning, but my question is should we move Les Coker to past? I think we should because the emporium has closed, Sasha's work experience will have ended by now (and she hasn't been in it for ages, but don't think she should be moved as her father is Ray), and Cora hasn't had any dealings with him for ages either. –anemone projectors– 15:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You maybe should remove Les because well he mentions doing funerals for Walford characters but we never saw him. --Anna2123456789 (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, i'm inclined to Keep Les as per the one year rule, lets see if he pops up at the next funeral. Bleaney (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes we are expecting one! Ok, agreed. –anemone projectors– 20:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no sign of Les coming up for the funeral so he's gone to past - another user did it on his list entry so I cleaned up and did the rest. –anemone projectors– 14:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Butcher children

before they temporarily left Liam, Tiffany and Morgan were listed as regulars but they are listed as guest on here now and Tiffany is not back yet in Tuesday's episode Bianca was quoted as saying 'She's still with Ricky until this pantomime is over' --Onlythetruthisappropriate (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

They are listed as recurring, and that is what they should stay until they start appearing regularly. James Forde (who plays Liam) is now 16, and will have done his GCSE's by now, so presumably the actor could start appearing regularly, but with Tiff & Morgan, they are played by child actors, so can only appear on a recurring basis. I say keep them all as recurring until we see differently. Bleaney (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, keep them as recurring for now as child characters - they should have been recurring before and we already agreed this, I think, when they went off-screen. –anemone projectors– 12:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Nico, Trish and Alexa

Should we remove Nico Papadopoulos, Trish Barnes and Alexa Smith from the recurring list? I know we kept Nico on here, because the actor who played him tweeted that he was filming in Elstree again, though didn't say if it was EastEnders or not. Wouldn't we have seen him by now if it was? With Trish, the storyline seems to have moved on to a new set of social workers, so can we assume she's gone? And also Alexa... any upcoming appearances? As the charges have been dropped against Lola, can we assume she's gone? Bleaney (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems Nico's gone since Fatboy was sacked, Trish has been replaced and Alexa probably won't be around anymore either. –anemone projectors– 19:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually though, am I being a wee bit hasty with Nico? I think that the actor tweeted that he had returned to Elstree in September/October. EE have been known to film up to 3 months in advance, so could this appearance still be upcoming? The other reason (though much more tenuous) is that Liam is back working at McKlunkys again, and Cora has just taken over Dot's job at the laundrette (a Papadopoulos family business). Therefore could this make a Nico appearance more likely? Perhaps we should wait until Dot's return in January and see if she fights to get her job back before we remove him? Bleaney (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps yeah. But defo do the other two. –anemone projectors– 14:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, anyone know Trish and Alexas last dates? Bleaney (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Trish's was 19 November, Alexa's was 15 November. –anemone projectors– 09:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. I've left Nico for now though. Bleaney (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Trish was in last night's episode. Do we revert? I didn't know she was due to appear because she wasn't listed on the online credits though was credited for the broadcast. –anemone projectors– 08:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ha, ha!!! I swear to god EastEnders do it to us on purpose! Yeah I guess add her back to present. Bleaney (talk)

Actually though I doubt well see her again after last nights episode. Bleaney (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should put her back and then wait and see who visits Phil/Lola the next time. Hopefully if it's Trish, she'll actually be credited! There's hardly any "others" credited up to 28 December, and those who are don't really have names, like "thug" or "policeman". And Trish isn't credited either. –anemone projectors– 13:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added Trish back to the list for now, I still doubt she will appear again, I have a feeling trish represented the 'bad times' Lola had with Social services, and that Lola's new foe will be Phil, not Trish. But i'm happy to wait and see if Trish is the next contact Lola/Lexi has from Social Services. Bleaney (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a note on the fact we are using upcoming credits to see if they are appearing - the BBC haven't released the episode pages for 27 December. Also it looks like some January eps are missing (they list Monday 31 December, then Thursday 3 January) but I can't find a TV listing that goes that far ahead just yet. –anemone projectors– 18:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

All eps to 4 Jan are now up, no sign of Trish (or anyone else who might be a replacement) –anemone projectors– 09:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Remove Trish and Sasha? — M.Mario (T/C) 15:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd definately leave Sasha, she may well appear again. I'm thinking we could get rid of Trish though. Bleaney (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm still unsure about Trish - I think we should still wait and see who the next social worker is (assuming there will be one - Lorraine Newman did say there would be others) –anemone projectors– 13:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we have one coming up no? Bleaney (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently Hayley/Helen Roberts is coming back, but she was nothing to do with Lexi, just Lola. We'll have to see, but we don't know when she'll be back as it's just her agent saying she's reprised the role - but that was in October so if she's coming up, it'll be soon. –anemone projectors– 15:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Trish is back –anemone projectors– 07:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

When Shirley and Liam were working together in the kebab shop, Shirley distinctly said "Nico's not here anymore". I guess we can move him to past now. –anemone projectors– 12:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Rashid

Radio Times states "Masood tries to make Ayesha forget about him and focus on her fiance Rashid's imminent visit", but does that actually mean Rashid is going to appear? Shouldn't we wait to see his name in credits? –anemone projectors– 21:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that was my fault, I believed it did mean so. But, maybe we should move him to past? Or just leave him for the time being? — M.Mario (T/C) 17:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Well it shouldn't be long before we can be sure. Maybe just leave it for now (if we're a bit lazy). –anemone projectors– 17:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

He's coming back –anemone projectors– 07:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Characters in Red Button episodes

Asking this here as it's a more central place - I watched "Dot Branning: The Next Chapter" on iPlayer yesterday, and noticed two characters credited in that. Should they be included in the 2013 others list, or not? This is a canonical episode of EastEnders, it's just that it wasn't on BBC One, didn't last as long and was set away from Walford (as most Red Button specials seem to be). Then other characters could be added to other pages, such as Omid Djalili's Hercules from "Billy's Olympic Nightmare". –anemone projectors– 11:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

They might be canonical, but they are spin off in a way arent they? Do we include characters from things like Pat & Mo? Or Dot's evacuation years? Bleaney (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the list of past characters does have some red links for characters who were in those types of shows - for example, there's a red link for Ray Taylor (EastEnders: Perfectly Frank). They're sort of a spin-off, but not really in the same way that Civvy Street was, or Last Tango in Walford, or Slaters in Detention. Maybe not. But I don't think they would belong on the list of spin-off characters either. Maybe there's another way to include them in Wikipedia. –anemone projectors– 15:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to be purist and only list characters that have actually featured in EE in episodes broadcast on BBC1. Bleaney (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I think that's the thing to do. Djalili's character is mentioned in Billy's Olympic Nightmare, and I'm working on lists of episodes that include the Red Button stuff, so maybe I could expand that. –anemone projectors– 16:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Liam butcher - Recurring or regular?

I'm wondering whether its now time to reclassify Liam Butcher as a present character (rather than recurring). We tend to class all child characters as recurring, and Liam is still only 14 in the series. However the actor who plays him (James Forde) is actually 16 and judging by his date of birth, he will have finished his GCSE's and compulsory education, meaning the actor can appear regularly, and is not bound by child labour laws. On-screen I feel it has been noticable that Liam has featured more frequently since he returned just before Xmas, and judging by this source - http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s3/coronation-street/scoop/a452880/corrie-exit-eastenders-gang-hollyoaks-bullies-new-spoilers.html

(Spoiler alert)

He has some big storylines and much more stuff coming up. So is it now the time to reclassify Liam into the main cast? I remember that we considered the likes of Abi and Jay to be main cast by Liam's age, so what do people think? Bleaney (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If he's 16 and no longer needs to be chaperoned, and he has this storyline (which I read about earlier and thought ah it's about time he got his own!) then I think it's time to move him to regular. Yeah Abi was regular ages ago and Lorna Fitzgerald has only turned 16 in real life which means she can do more hours, so if James Forde really is 16 than the same should apply. –anemone projectors– 19:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah i've been bold and just done it. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert me and take it up here. Bleaney (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Imam Ali

I noticed on Radio Times [8] that a character credited as "Iman Ali" is coming up, played by Sanjiv Hayre. My first assumption was that this was Imam Ali, our 2009 character who last appeared on 12 May 2011, but has always been played by Emilio Doorgasingh. For this reason, I have not added this character to 2013's others list. This could be a recast and a spelling error, or perhaps not. Should we leave it until either he appears in BBC credits or the episode airs? –anemone projectors– 11:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that its a typo, and that Imam Ali has been recast. However I guess we should wait until the BBC credits at least. Bleaney (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. –anemone projectors– 15:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Judging by this, it's supposed to be "imam", but the BBC forgot how to spell and were too bloody lazy to bother to check. I hope it's right in the credits. Digital Spy have corrected it. But I suppose it could still be a different imam named Ali. We still need more details - maybe check when Digital Spy write a full episode synopsis before it airs to see if there are any clues. –anemone projectors– 18:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

BBC credits are out, spelling it "iman". But I'm going to assume it's the same character and do the necessary updates. –anemone projectors– 09:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In tonights episode, Zainab said they were meeting with the 'new imam'. It would seem as if this is not the same Imam Ali recasted, but a new character. Can anyone make the necessary changes? Bleaney (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that means putting the old Ali back on the past list and creating an entry in the 2013 others list. Stupid of them not to give him a different name! –anemone projectors– 21:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Am able to mostly undo my own edits to sort it out - and I've done the 2013 entry –anemone projectors– 22:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool, yeah very lazy! I thought when she said that that maybe he would be the old Imam Ali's brother or son, but no mentioned connection. Maybe we are to believe that the only imam's available in Walford are named Ali! Bleaney (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the writers don't know what they're doing. –anemone projectors– 22:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ayesha leaving?

Today's Inisde Soap says, "After delivering a few home truths to Zainab, Ayesha comes clean and admits that nothing has actually happened between her and Masood. However, there's no going back from her confession, and embarrassed Ayesha leaves Walford." Do we think that's her departure (and she's therefore a guest character)? –anemone projectors– 17:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Also in their "what happens when?" section, they have a "character departs" icon next to "the lass decides to leave Albert Square." –anemone projectors– 18:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That'll be a yes then. Thanks for replying everyone. –anemone projectors– 09:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Ayesha will return on 21 February. [9] ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I know, even I forgot to reply to myself this time! I did revert all my edits though. –anemone projectors– 13:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Though my "that'll be a yes" comment was because someone else listed her as departing. –anemone projectors– 13:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, at least we've got something here to refer to now if anyone else attempts to list her as departing. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. And also I've seen her in the credits for next week too. –anemone projectors– 17:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Oscar Branning

Max said today that Tanya took Oscar when she left - do we put him as a returning character as well or leave him as recurring? I suppose we could apply the 1-year rule and leave him. Max might get to see him in that time, you never know. –anemone projectors– 20:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

As Tanya hasn't gone yet, please ignore this discussion. –anemone projectors– 09:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

hi wanted to edit so i can show who is coming in and out of eastenders, you know who will next use their door. 86.9.148.91 (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. If you want to edit this page, you need to register an account then become autoconfirmed. Edit Semi Protected requests are for if you have a specific change you want to make. Vaca tion 9 22:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Rashid Kayani

Shouldn't we get rid of Rashid Kayani from this list? I doubt we will see him again, especially as Ayesha is gone? Bleaney (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes he should have been taken off ages ago, I don't know why nobody bothered to. We only had him recurring for his three episodes. –anemone projectors– 18:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Previous actors

Wouldn't it be more simple to remove the list of previous actors off the list of character's, because on their character page it tells you already who played the part before. Plus it looks a mess the character list due to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.13.60.40 (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, not a bad idea, IMHO. Why do we need the previous actors on this page? Stephenb (Talk) 11:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

They were added because there's no specific list of EastEnders actors (yet - I've been working on one for ages but wanted a longer lead section before I make it live). I don't think we should remove them, because then we'd also have to remove them from the past characters list, and we should give the information that this character was played by all these actors. Why should the most recent actor take all the credit? Also it will look like one actor will have played the character for the entire duration. –anemone projectors– 12:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, in response: (a) removing them here doesn't mean necessarily removing them elsewhere (I'd argue against if for past character, as that is specifically a historical record article), (b) the information about who played the character can be found elsewhere, in the relevant character's article, where (c) the other actors are given their due credit and there is the opportunity to say that the character was played by other actors beforehand. This article lists current characters alongside their current portrayers, I don't see any need to list former actors. Anyone else? Stephenb (Talk) 12:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I still think will imply that Charlie Brooks has played Janine from 1989, and Hetty Bywater has played Lucy from 1993, etc. The proposed change also seems to suggest that readers of this list should check all the characters to find out if another actor has played that role. Think of the casual reader who hasn't watched EastEnders (for example, I occasionally look at the character lists for the other soaps that I don't watch). Wikipedia articles should always be written with those people in mind. –anemone projectors– 13:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well if people are smart they will click on the character page and see that other actors have played that roll, common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.13.60.40 (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is. Hollyoaks also has it this way. Nothing wrong with it. ThisIsDanny (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're that concerned about who played who when, surely the "duration" field should be split to include the duration for the individual actors. For instance, when did Alex Francis play Bobby Beale from/to? Alternatively, just change the column header to "Current actor" - simple enough. There really is no need for this article, about current characters, to list past actors. Stephenb (Talk) 20:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If the list is about characters, why list any actors? We should list all the actors who have played the current characters, for the reasons I already gave. "If people are smart" but not everyone is and we shouldn't expect them to be. I think we should let people know that a character was played by more than one actor. That allows them to then click for more information, but we shouldn't expect them to have to check every article just to see who has been recast. Most people, I expect, would assume none of them had been recast if only one actor is listed, and that Charlie Brooks has always played Janine. That's just false information. If we remove the past actors, we should remove the durations, and I don't think anyone wants that. –anemone projectors– 22:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Mo Harris

Why is Mo still listed as a regular character when she hasn't appeared in months and the actress has confirmed in her book she is no longer a regular character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.104.35 (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What does it actually say in the book? Can it be sourced (i'm sure her book was serialised in one of the papers?) Is she a recurring character or has she left? Surely Digital Spy or someone would have reported this??? Bleaney (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There was something about this in one of the soap mags recently. I'll try to find it later. –anemone projectors– 07:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Inside Soap dated 6-12 April has a quote from a "source" who said "Although she's been absent from the Square while her son-in-law Charlie's in poor health, Mo's still living at the Vic, and she also owns the house that Kat's been renting. That means we'll be seeing her around in Walford for the foreseeable future - just maybe not as frequently as we've been used to in the past." So maybe she's not a regular character now. I would say keep her as regular though, because she's been regular for the majority of her time. –anemone projectors– 15:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, making her recurring now would be odd, and of course she could always increase her appearances once more. Bleaney (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to say that Mo is credited in an upcoming episode [10] (but they've put "Mo Slater" for no reason). –anemone projectors– 07:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

She's just appeared in tonight's episode... ThisIsDanny (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes that episode I mentioned above :-) –anemone projectors– 06:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Steve Lowe & Norman Pike

Can we assume Steve Lowe has gone? Carol seems to be moving on with Masood? Any forthcoming appearances scheduled for him? Bleaney (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Also Norman Pike... his entry says only 2 episodes in April. Bleaney (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Steve has probably gone because yes Carol's moved on and Bianca has a new probation officer too. As for Norman, I put 2 eps because that's all I knew he'd be in, but the Janine/Michael custody of Scarlett storyline is ongoing, so maybe he'll still appear... but that could go for Simone Turnbell as well. Chances are that's it for them both though. –anemone projectors– 07:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed Steve Lowe. I have left Norman Pike for now to see if Michael uses him as his brief any more, the storyline is still very recent. Bleaney (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with this. –anemone projectors– 15:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to say that Pike is still appearing [11] –anemone projectors– 09:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

References

When I moved Sam James from future to present, I left in the reference in the hope that it would encourage people to add more references/keep references in when character join/return. Eaststreetlover (talk · contribs) removed the reference and added the comment "This doesn't need a ref !". Everything on Wikipedia should be referenced though, so I'd like to revert the edit and see more references included, both here and in the past list. Am I wrong to think this? –anemone projectors– 15:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Just had a thought - our external link for the BBC is technically a reference for everything. Maybe that's good enough??? –anemone projectors– 15:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think instead of having a reference for each individual character, there should just be one reference at the top where it says "Character" with it being the BBC Online character list in the external links? ThisIsDanny (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We could probably do that. We wouldn't have refs for recurring characters though. –anemone projectors– 16:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Well then they could be referenced individually as they're a different section on the page. It'll just save a lot of time and space. I'm not bothered either way, just thinking of solutions :) ThisIsDanny (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that. We've gone this long without refs though - perhaps like storylines, the episodes are the reference and therefore we don't need any. I think having the page in external links is ok to be honest, and I'm just being a bit picky. Normally I'm not the one moving characters from future to present, but nobody moved Sam after the episode so I did it the next morning, so nobody else has tried to leave a reference in. –anemone projectors– 16:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)