Talk:EastEnders Live Week

Reliable sources
We can't just link to the BBC's page on the show and pretend that the source is a good, secondary one. Some of the other sources are pretty suspect, too — almost like the writer had just watched the episode and then done a précis of it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes we can link to the BBC that's call a PRIMARY SOURCE. All the SECONDARY sources are good, would you like to provide example of which ones you think are dodgy? 88.105.157.139 (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On a different matter, why are their so many sources for one statement? It's making the page look like a mess, having five sources just to back up one claim. Summaries aren't even supposed to have sources. Also, you clearly haven't grasped the concept of full sources and not just bare links, haven't you? --— RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 00:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are not four sources for the same statement, there are four sources referring to different episodes as it is a summery and obviously not everything happens in the same ep. Summaries should have sources otherwise one is just making it up, (especially here as they are not on DVD) but it helps when there is a nice reliable url to contribute and therefore the source should be included. As for the refs being bare urls how dare you say that I haven't grasped the concept. Clearly I have an understanding of referencing as you have added content without a single source, or are using sources which are used for one thing to demonstrate something that they don't mention. I just can't be bothered to use a template.80.43.247.19 (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Summaries on EastEnders have never included sources, except from the odd few, as it makes for difficult reading for casual readers. This was discussed and agreed at WikiProject EastEnders years ago, but you continue to revert my edits. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 14:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly that's a lie as you have not made any reverts. The only thing you did was remove sourced material from a section which is not the plot and since it flies int eh face of MOS for fiction, most of the users go and edit more that one show, I think you're talking rubbish particularly when you've only been her since 2012 and only edited EE since this year having spent the previous time doing BB. May I suggest you learn the rules of Wiki and stop trying to intimidate people as it's not working. 88.105.152.249 (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. This is why IP-address users have such a bad reputation on here. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 23:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. This is why people called Rachel are always in a confrontation with other users on here. 80.42.83.253 (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why must you get so personal? That's quite ridiculous. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 17:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"Look Back in Anger"
This is the title of the double episode from 19 February, but I'm not sure where to include it. Here's the source: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/writersroom/scripts/EastEnders-5017-18pps.pdf – anemone projectors – 07:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's an official name, unlike "Pretty Baby". — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 19:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is, because it's on the script, exactly the same as "Pretty Baby...." (we got the title of that one from the script that was available from the same BBC Writers' Room website). Only a handful of (special) episodes are ever named by the writers - but we only know when they are when the scripts are available in the Writers' Room. – anemone projectors – 16:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose we can put it in somewhere, then. I'm not sure where it would fit either. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 19:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Jane's dress and other factoids
No mention of the fact Jane's dress was designed to match the colours of the opening titles, or the little tribute to Tony Holland and Julia Smith, or the fact Stacey's line was a direct repeat of Den's in episode 1. Actually I just found that bit but had to read the article to find it, as the words I expected to be able to search for weren't mentioned (i.e. "Den Watts" at least)! Were there other little tributes to the past that aren't mentioned? I have a photo of Jane's dress so for that to be included so the photo can be too would be great. – anemone projectors – 15:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Shall we include a section for continuity? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 18:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Would these type of self-references come under a "continuity" section? – anemone projectors – 12:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I added them under the Continuity heading but we can change it. Not sure what to. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 16:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's all good stuff, and things I had forgotten about, so thanks for that. I wonder if it should go in a subsection under "production" as it's all deliberately planned stuff, maybe. – anemone projectors – 08:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"Episode 5020" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Episode 5020 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)