Talk:Steven Beale

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

Birthdate[edit]

Quote: "Steven was born on 28 December 1989 (although the producers now claim his birth was on Boxing Day)" - is this birthdate the date of the episode, or the date within the series? I can easily imagine that the episode was set on Boxing Day, as dramatic events over Christmas tend to consume more than one episode. Therefore, the producers might be right (where's the citation for this "producers claim" incidentally?). Stephenb (Talk) 15:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Peter Beale shares both of my first names and was born on 28 December 1989, which is also my birthday. Things like that tend to stick in one's mind. - Stevecov 16:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I meant to say that the producers' claim was/is listed on the BBC's Eastenders website in a profile of the character. - Stevecov 16:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say he was born on 28th December - but on TV, the episode broadcast on your birthday might have been set on Boxing Day - you might not have noticed that at the time. I would go with the profile. Stephenb (Talk) 17:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Todays episode showed steven drinking alchol in the vic, but isnt he only 17, and was it me or did pat say about a week ago that steven was 25.MotorSportMCMXC 22:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You must be mistaken. That would be the most serious case of SORAS ever! — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 22:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was defininatly drink lager or beer in a bottle and the younger mitchell sister served him, but i was pretty sure that he was described as 25. MotorSportMCMXC 22:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Today a couple of times it said he was drunk but he is only 17.MotorSportMCMXC 20:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he claimed to be 25 so he could be served alcohol. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 20:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on[edit]

Bit soon for this isn't it? Theres been no confirmation of who that was. Sparhelda 20:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a bit soon, his return was rumoured back in June. Mikeipeda 20:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparhelda is right. I agree that this character is almost certainly Steven Beale, but as there has been no confirmation on-screen or sources quoted, then we should not be saying so on this page. Waiting a couple of days for the next episode will make no difference.Gungadin♦ 12:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously Steven - who else would it be? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
but that isn't really the point. You of all people should know that Trampikey. You are usually the most strict when it comes to confirmation, sources and crystal ballery.Gungadin♦ 14:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(That's because I know it's him, but I don't have a citable source!) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 15:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its now confirmed on the BBC Easternders home page under spolier alerts ]])(contribs) 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is too soon, regardless of what Trampikey "knows" or what rumours have been around. It has not been confirmed. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 16:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I "know" something about another character but don't have a source as it hasn't been annouced anywhere yet so I've not changed any articles. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 16:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Onestevenjanekiss.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 05:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done anemone|projectors 19:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources[edit]

Walford actor feels "so lucky" anemone│projectors 23:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Farrell[edit]

Was it Edmund or Edward? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 17:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Edward, that's what I put there initially. User:Jam95 seems to have changed it Edmund a few weeks ago, for some unknwon reason..Gungadin 17:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexual stuff[edit]

Should I include the bi sexual stuff in the OOU section, or wait til it airs first? Gungadin 00:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THe OOU section should comment on real-world reception, as the news officially exists at present there is no reason to wait for the airdate.~ZytheTalk to me! 14:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement. anemone│projectors 18:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, the only thing I was worried about was if it turned out to be false. I didnt want to treat it like fact when nothing has been officially confirmed, but so long as I say it's only rumoured, then i suppose it wont matter.Gungadin 23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point that I didn't think of. I think it is probably true though. And it can always be removed (or re-written). anemone│projectors 00:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been officially confirmed, but several reliable sources (Digital Spy, newspapers) have confirmed it, as has Sharon Marshall on This Morning. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 00:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Gungadin 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about Category:Fictional bisexuals? The character is currently concieved as a bisexual, he's not going to suddenly turn the moment he kisses Christian or expresses confusion, right?~ZytheTalk to me! 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it. anemone│projectors 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven hasn't left yet![edit]

Whoever keeps changing the article to past tense, last night's episode (9 May 2008) was not Aaron's last as Steven. This has been said in various soap magazines and there are photos of him from an episode which has yet to be seen on air. - 172.141.208.132 (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Oooh! how evil.00:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Storylines section[edit]

Do you think we need to keep the storylines section now? The OOU bit is pretty comprehensive, and there is little in the storylines that isnt in the OOU bit, or that couldnt be added. Gungadin 18:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven's family[edit]

Steven's adoptive grandparents are Pete and Kathy. They were Ina's parents. They were actively there in his early years even in the christening, helping to bring him up, looking after him etc. It is only right that they are included because they are family, like it or not.--86.135.53.139 (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finally starting to get the message and starting a discussion, but you should do it without reverting edits at the same time. I don't agree that "it's only right" because consensus and Wikipedia policy should decide. –anemoneprojectors– 16:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would add them, its not as if Steven will even remember them surely. Bleaney (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he remembers them. They are family and will be kept, like it or not.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to say you wouldn't add them? –anemoneprojectors– 20:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes I WOULDNT add them. Bleaney (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also Kathy and Pete were part of Steven Beale's paternity storyline.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I refer you all to the discussion on Talk:Lucy Beale which will flesh the reasons why Kathy should be included in regards to Lucy. I would link this to reasons for Steven and also it is worth bearing in mind that Peter and Kathy were not only his grandparents but played a huge part in the paternity storyline.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if Kathy is listed for Lucy then the same reasons should apply to Steven and Peter. Then again it's a relationship via adoption, so I'd be less sure about listing here. That probably doesn't matter though, since when you're adopted, you join the entire family. –anemoneprojectors– 13:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then I've added Pete Beale since they share onscreen time and he was his namesake etc. Also, Pete may actually be Steven's grandad anyway.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just gonna say ok without even thinking if I agree or not. I can't be bothered to argue :-) –anemoneprojectors– 22:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexual II[edit]

A newly created account has been trying to remove discussion on the character's bisexuality, or lack therof. I have no opinion, not bonded, but was opposed to the removal of referenced material. I leave this here for a place for discussion, should the (now temporarily blocked) editor wish to discuss and form community consensus. Ifnord (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_Beale&oldid=1210072342"