Talk:Kat Slater

Return
there have been uncomfirmed rumors that Kat will be returning some time in the next 12 months with alfies baby ? can anyone comfirm this thanks Lukelouvon (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * no, nobody can confirm this. we can only deny it. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 17:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Revamping article
So, we should probably get going on revamping this article, methinks. Any takers for specific sections? The storyline section will also have to be compacted, imo; perhaps a division into 2000-2003; 2004-2005 - or just have one 2000-2005; 2010- ???? ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  12:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This article was never vamped in the first place! With the storylines, I would just have one section for now as there's nothing to add for 2010. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new article structure
1. Creation and casting 2. Character development 2.1 Personality 2.2 Mother 2.3 Kat & Alfie 3. Storylines 3.1 2000-2005 3.2 2010- 4. Reception and popular culture

Creation and casting
 * I think this can be expanded upon a bit. Particularly in the casting area. There are a number of quotes from Wallace, and I think we can probably even include some of her comments about how good playing Kat was here too. ?? But the existing material is sound and just needs consolidating and expanding a bit.

Personality
 * It's a bit criminal not to have a personality section on Kat. This has got to be one of the defining characteristics of her character, more so than Pauline, Peggy, Ronnie or even Chrissie (to use GA examples) imo. There is already some material in the article for this, and plenty of quotes and sources that talk about Kat's personality. This should be one of the easiest sections to develop.

Mother
 * PROVISIONAL TITLE. What do we think? Obviously this refers to the Zoe storyline/revelation and Kat's role/representation as a mother. I think it is an important development in her character, and goes straight across her 2000-05 time.

Kat & Alfie
 * PROVISIONAL TITLE. Ok, so what about the title for this aspect of her character. Again, pretty prominent. I thought about "Mrs Moon" or "Wife", but the idea of "Kat & Alfie" has greater currency I think. This obviously links across from 03-05, and then 10-.


 * The only other subsection that I would like to put forward for consideration is "Tart with a heart". I think this idea is pretty central to Kat, BUT it may be more directly addressed under personality rather than development?


 * The problem I see with this outline is the subsection on "reintroduction". Is there are better term we can use. I just feel it sticks out a bit with the more thematic approach I have put forward above. Thoughts? In fact, as Frickative and AP I need your comment here because you are FAR more familiar with the outlines for character pages, but I would be tempted to put the "reintroduction" section outside character development and as a section of its own. I think it warrants it, and I don't know how much of it is actually applicable to character development and characterisation. Is that normal procedure for such instances. Sometimes reintroductions are obviously part of character development (Sharon Watts' for instance), but I don't feel that here. In part, that may because not enough time has passed. In the future it may be very viable to incorporate it into development under the title of "Baby" or something. But presently it seems rather artificial.

So, this is what I would put forward for the article rejuvenation. 08:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I would say that all sounds pretty good, though I definitely leave the reintroduction stuff separate from earlier Kalfie stuff, but still under the "Development" heading. I would suggest "Motherhood" over "Mother" though that might be misleading. I would perhaps go for something like "Maternity of Zoe" or something similar. And then "Relationship with Alfie". They're probably more encyclopaedic headings. The fact that the character returned is part of development. Maybe not "character" development, but storyline development, so all stuff relating to that should still be under a "development" heading. It would be odd to separate it especially when more sections may be added in the future. Anemone  Projectors  10:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I like 'Maternity of Zoe' as a title for that subsection - at first glance, 'Mother' seems as though it might be about the Slater matriarch. I too would leave the reintroduction section under development, but I think as the article expands it may naturally end up compacted, with more of a focus on the Kat/Alfie + baby aspect of her return anyway. At present it's just shy of 500 words, but over a third of that is direct quotations from those involved, so it could stand to go through some paraphrasing anyway. The ratings part of the last paragraph can be shifted down to reception, and the "In the storyline..." bit isn't necessary as it repeats the plot already present, so with a bit of editing, it's probably going to end up looking quite different. And I agree, the 'Tart with a heart' aspect would likely work best as part of a 'Personality' or 'Characterisation' section. The only major suggestion I'd make (though this doesn't apply to this article alone) is bumping 'Storylines' up to the top section after the lead. The TV WikiProject recommend opening with the plot section to give readers context on everything that follows, which I think is sound, though you may of course disagree :) Frickative  11:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Maternity of Zoe" sounds good to me, as does "Relationship with Alfie". The "reintroduction" title still seems a little awkward to me, but it can probably be incorporated under a different title once Kat has been around a little longer. Great work on condensing the storylines section too Frickative. SO much better! ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  12:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Reintroduction' could become something like '2010 return'? Storylines is fine at the top when it is as consice as possible but not when it becomes a dumping ground! Anemone  Projectors  13:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Images
Which ones shall we get rid of to comply with fair use policy? I think the wedding pic can definitely go (there's a freebie one of Shane Richie, should we want to show what Alfie looks like). We only really need one headshot too, as she's not really changed much over the years. I'd actually be inclined to keep the 2000 image as the ibox one, because she's not staring gormlessly off-screen in it, but YMMV. Frickative 23:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I already removed the wedding one. I didn't realise four was excessive. Anemone  Projectors  00:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And if you try to put the 2000 image in the infobox, expect enless reverts from IPs ;-) Anemone  Projectors  00:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, at least she's looking in the right direction in it! I think four is fine in some cases, but I can see why the template was applied, so I thought it'd be better if we decided amongst ourselves which ones we can live without, rather than an editor unfamiliar with the subject trying to pick :) Frickative  00:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is three ok? Anemone  Projectors  00:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I thought four was fine so I'd say three was absolutely ok :)--5 albert square (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think three is okay, but I still don't think we need two headshots when she looks basically the same in both of them. If it came down to it, I'd rather lose one of them and keep the wedding pic, I think. Frickative  00:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * lolz I'll leave it up to you :-) Anemone  Projectors  00:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty much certain that the young image isnt from 2000 anyway. If we can get one from then, I could argue for keeping it. That looks to me like it's much later.  GunGagdin Moan 10:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Plus the image is here on this site and Alfie appears in some of the other images where she's looking exactly the same, so I dont think it can be from 2000. Maybe if we can get one from 2000, where she did look a little different? But otherwise, I would agree with deleting the young image because she doesnt look hugely different. Although, I suppose, she wont always stay the same appearance-wise, so it may be useful to hang on to an early image as the infobox image will be updated endlessly.  GunGagdin Moan 10:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On a side not re images (and I know it was me who uploaded the majority) but I think storyline caps, unless they are real important scenes discussed in the page, should be deleted when we come across them.  GunGagdin Moan 11:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're right that the image isn't from 2000, and I agree about storyline captures, as they probably all fail WP:NFCC. Anemone  Projectors  12:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The headshot of her when she was younger really needs to go- it's completely redundant to the lead image. J Milburn (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do agree - I think unless a character is played by different actors, or ages considerably during their time in the show, having more than one headshot isn't necessary. Adults don't tend to change that much facially. For example, the difference between File:Ronnie-Branning 2007 (EastEnders).jpg and File:Ronnie mitchell.jpg or File:Christian-Clarke.jpg and File:Christian clark.jpg, or File:Big MO2.jpg and File:Mo Harris 2007.jpg, or File:Alfie Moon.jpg and File:Alfiemoon2010.jpg or File:DeniseF2006.jpg and File:Denise fox.jpg are really just hair styles and slight (but not dramatic) ageing. Even File:Aunite sal martin.jpg and File:Aunt sal EE 2007.jpg, taken 14 years apart, are clearly and recognisably the same person. Frickative  14:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also not seen much point in these early images being used. Makes sense for someone like Billie Jackson but Alfie Moon has not changed one bit. I did say the 2dtv image had a stronger rationale... Anemone  Projectors  16:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And even though GSorby has now uploaded an older image, the same surely still applies. Anemone  Projectors  16:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well...I must admit, Alfie definitely didn't need it, but Ronnie does, cos her face has changed a little bit and she always has long hairs. I think it's nice to have some early images. -- GSorby  Chat with Me! 16:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd refute that Ronnie does - she was a bit thinner in the face and had a full fringe in '07, but it's not a drastic difference. Per NFCC#8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." No one's understanding of Ronnie as a character will be impeded unless they know she's put on a little bit of weight and changed her fringe. Frickative  17:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the changing appearance of a character is important to portray especially when we are talking decades, otherwise we are putting undue weight on a character's current time in the series. Some are not needed though, I agree.  GunGagdin Moan 07:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did they go?
where has the main pciture of kat moon gone? --MayhemMario (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An IP tried to replace it with another image without success. If similar edits occur in future, it's best to just revert them. Ooh, Fruity   @  Ooh, Chatty  20:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

'sleeping' vs '[having sex]'
AP has twice tried to interpret an original quote ("It's the last thing he expected to hear. He didn't see it coming. He's upset and angry, especially when Kat tries to explain how he made her feel when he accused her of sleeping with someone else when she got pregnant again") by unnecessarily replacing "sleeping" with "[having sex]". The article should not re-interpret an original quote, especially when it is effectively a quote of a quote (i.e. an actor quoting what one character accused another of) - if the accusation was "sleeping with" then that's the accusation that should remain, despite the fact that it's a euphemism, because it's a quote. Note, WP:EUPHEMISM says nothing about quotes, and should probably only apply to article prose. Stephenb (Talk) 07:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say it doesn't apply to quotes, but if you feel that strongly about it, I'll leave it. – Anemone Projectors – 07:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

New Image
What do people think about adding a new image for Kat, as I don't think this image is very flattering for Jessie Wallace. Tinamckintyre23 (Come and talk!) 15:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with the current image. Anything that shows the character as she might typically look (hair, makeup, jewellery and clothes) is what I prefer. – Anemone Projectors – 15:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, it doesn't look very flattering, does it?. I would be up for a new image. 94.8.203.199 (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That makes three that are up for it then. I'll look for a new free image tonight. 81.136.131.87 (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've found this. 200px I have no idea whether it's free or not, though. Tinamckintyre23 (Come and talk!) 21:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not free so I shall tag it for deletion on Commons. – Anemone Projectors – 16:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To 81.136.131.87, all images of Kat Slater will be copyrighted by the BBC, so a new image will have to be uploaded under a fair use claim. It's helpful to use the same file name. In fact, it's probably a good idea to get GSorby to do it, as he usually sources screenshots for EastEnders articles. However, there is nothing wrong with the current image and 3 people agreeing with something does not a consensus make. – Anemone Projectors – 16:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In our defense, the current image of Kat is absolutely fine. I captured this one thinking this is what a typical Kat looks like so to be honest, this image is fine for now. Images don't need to be updated every 5 minutes!! George  Ping!  16:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with George, a new image is not needed. Usually an image is only updated if the character changes appearance.  I've looked at the current image and there's nothing wrong with it--5 albert square (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

2014 Pregnancy
Is this worth a mention in the 'real-world' section does anybody think? http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a536681/eastenders-character-to-reveal-pregnancy-in-christmas-storyline.html

Seems like it'll be a main storyline for the year, and I'm sure that DTC's reasons for it are intentional in getting the public in supporting Kat and Alfie again Alex250P (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see any real-world information to add, other than the fact that the storyline has been announced. Let's hold onto it until we have something else to go with it. – Anemone Projectors – 23:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And there's no need to state in the storylines how Kat finds out she is expecting twins, just that she is. Fiction should be written about, in the most part, from a real-world perspecting, so the storylines should be kept as brief as possible. – Anemone Projectors – 22:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)