Talk:List of EastEnders characters/Archive 5

Jane Beale/Laurie Brett
Two editors have removed this actress/character from the list of "Returning characters", which I have reverted. Have I missed something and she's now announced she won't return? Stephenb (Talk) 08:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A possible assumption, and based on this assumption, if those particular editors ever see this, let me just say something. Ian only CLAIMS that Jane is dead, he doesn't actually die.--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Grace (again!)
as with Harry Gold and Edward Bishop her departure will not be announced, just wondering as it was Mercy's final appearane last night if it was Grace's too?!--Mustbeemo789 (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Grace is staying on, and she is appearing in series 3 of E20. It seems likely her other daughter, Faith, could move over from E20 after series 3. But that's not confirmed, I think. But Grace is 100% staying. Why would she leave? She lives on Albert Square. – anemone projectors – 11:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

okies was just wondering :)--Mustbeemo789 (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ina
Just thought it was interesting that Ina was mentioned on Tuesday, if we give her a section at some point, which we should, we have that to incorporate. I can't remember the details but isn't it her first mention since the actress died? – anemone projectors – 13:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Lucy and Peter
Why are they being listed as returning? The recent interview is no differnt to the other sources we have on the issue. Until there is a certain date, or we know that they are casting, then they should not be on this list. They could come back in 5 years time for all we know.  GunGagdin Moan 15:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the same in some respects, I only added all that info to the articles as they are listed as returning, at first i thought it was vandalism, but then i saw AP ade the last edit to it, ;) Mayhem  Mario  15:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you 100% Gungadin. I was baffled when I noticed they had been allowed to stay in the list. Rain the One  BAM 15:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't Kirkwood saying "They are definitely returning" enough proof?--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He said "at some point in the future" - nothing is set in stone - as they say. If there is an announcement that they are due to start filming again or already have - that it real confirmation. Rain the One  BAM 21:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and they've been definitely coming back since they left apparently, which in Lucy's case is nearly a year ago.  GunGagdin Moan 21:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't be added until we have a more definite date of when any return will be. I mean look at it this way, when Melissa Suffield was sacked, Kirkwood said she would be recast.  Given that it was nearly a year since her last appearance I'd say he's decided to postpone that for whatever reason.  The reference provided definitely says "at some point in the future", if Kirkwood's not being more precise than that at the moment, I'd be willing to bet he also doesn't know when or if Lucy/Peter will be back.  Until there is a more precise date then they shouldn't be in the returning list.--5 albert square (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't blame me for this, I don't have a lot of time so I was just correcting what I thought was a casting error! – anemone projectors – 13:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

kirkwood has said a lot of stuff in past interviews that hasn't happened so i would take anything he said with a pinch of salt.--Mustbeemo789 (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Steven France
I wanted to add this last night but there was no ref mentioning him. Double standards. Rain the One  BAM 12:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard anything about him. GSorby  -  Talk!  12:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He admitted it on Twitter and FM forums posted pics of him... Normally we have to wait for a source. Rain the One  BAM 12:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I heard it from Twitter, but assumed there would be a source. As you know, I don't have much time lately. So I added it in the hope someone would source it after, knowing it to be correct. – anemone projectors – 16:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Promo Pics
Sorry to bring this up again, but I feel really storngly about having promo pics in characetrs articles in the infoboxes like Eddie Moon, Vanessa Gold and Manda Best and then having on screen pictures during the text, like Abi Branning (the picture of when she is younger). I today have been looking around separate wikis, and one caught my eye, whcih showed all the icons for the articles as prom pics and it looked really neat and professional. Any thoughts? Mayhem Mario  16:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Walford Wiki is not Wikipedia remember. We are an encyclopedia, not a scrapbook Mario :-) GSorby  -  Talk!  17:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree having promo pictures in the infoboxes looks a lot better and gives a clearer image for the article and looks a lot more professional D4nnyw14 (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking better/professional/pretty is not a good reason for their inclusion. However, if there is critical commentary of a certain element to the character (for example an outfit) that a screen shot cannot convey, then that might be a good reason to include one. - JuneGloom    Talk  18:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, June, but I think like the previous user stated that image does look clearer, which makes the article more appealing to readers. No much to go on I know :) Mayhem  Mario  07:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The image quality should not come into it. Copyrighted images on Wikipedia are meant to be lower quality. It's about the subject of the image. – anemone projectors – 16:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Lee
I read a report in the newspaper (the Sun, TV Biz pullout) the other day that a character called Lee would be a friend of Rob Grayson, but can't find details online and I think I threw the paper out now! Any ideas? – anemone projectors – 14:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's ok, tvtv has him listed for w/c 15 August... – anemone projectors – 12:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bushra
i think it is unlikely she will appear again, should she be moved to past?--Mustbeemo789 (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that? She could easily visit again as long as Zainab and her family are around. GSorby  -  Talk!  18:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, she's recurring as long as the Zainab is in it or until we hear otherwise, like she dies or moves away. – anemone projectors – 10:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Eddie Moon
David Essex on "The One Show" (|5th August 2011 - from about 12mins+, you've got 4 days left to watch it): "I actually come out of the programme next Friday but I'm still on screen until October I think", and he won't commit to coming back (he has a tour from October and may be making films afterwards). Alex Jones: "Will you come back?" DE: "I'm not sure... It's been a great challenge, I've enjoyed it." So he's definitely leaving, but we don't know if he's coming back... Stephenb (Talk) 19:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I missed the episode and won't be able to watch it on iPlayer, but he's basically said in older interviews that he finishes filming in August and hopes to return though it hasn't been confirmed. We've known this since before he arrived. – anemone projectors – 14:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Harry Gold
he is returning, why isn't he down as a returning character?--Mustbeemo789 (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He is, third from the top. - JuneGloom    Talk  18:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

ok cheers :)--Mustbeemo789 (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Rose and Morgan
As we can see from tvtv.co.uk, Rose is being credited as Rose Cotton. Changes have been made, but I think it's highly unlikely she should have this name. Anyway, if it's what they're calling her then we can't argue. But on the same week, Morgan is being credited as Morgan Butcher. This is clearly wrong. So something's up. Just wanted to point this out. – anemone projectors – 13:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I reverted the Morgan one, which is clearly (IMO) a mistake. However, the Rose one I was uncertain about - Charlie Cotton committed bigamy, didn't he? That is, he married both Dot and Rose, so Rose could still have kept her 'married' surname. Stephenb (Talk) 14:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I was thinking it might have been bigamous, but it does say on Dot's article "He threatened to leave if she did not, then left anyway because it was a bigamous marriage." I didn't have time to check before. – anemone projectors – 13:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Morgan is being credited as Butcher though. It can't have been changed with his parents away though! – anemone projectors – 14:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Derek Branning
Isn't he being recast? Just a little point to ruffle a few feathers before I leave. At least there should be a part which has the previous actor. :) Mayhem  Mario  14:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes – anemone projectors – 16:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So why hasn't Derek Branning got Terence Beesley under a previous actor heading on this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleaney (talk • contribs)


 * Probably because no one has been bothered to add a previous actor field to the list entry yet. Former actors are usually included, so that would be the only reason. To anyone who wants to, please feel free to add this field.  GunGagdin Moan 16:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What I was trying to say was, wouldnt he be under the tiel 'Characters being recast'/.? Mayhem  Mario  17:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that would be for present characters being recast (e.g. Lydia Simmonds), not returning characters being recast. – anemone projectors – 12:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what you were trying to say. You were trying to say what I just did. I assumed it would have been done before, which is why I never checked before. – anemone projectors – 12:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Lee (2)
why is he still down as recurring? he was only temporary for 4 episodes http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/9180872.I___ve_landed_a_part_in_EastEnders___weeks_after_leaving_drama_school/ --Mustbeemo789 (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He is credited on Monday as noted here. GSorby  -  Talk!  10:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

cool, that'll probably be his final appearance then but you never know things may have changed since tht article was printed :/--Mustbeemo789 (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He hasn't gone, anyone who reads Inside Soap knows this. That source can mean we move him out of "other" and give him a section to himself in the 2011 list. – anemone projectors – 14:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Amira's Baby...
We all knew Amira was going to arrive with her baby, but I found confiramtion (kind of) that she is, look here and in the top right corner at the mag, it shows Amira holding a baby girl, just giving everyone a heads up, make sure someone buys that mag! Mayhem Mario  17:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I doubt it will have any new info - also that is an old promo of Amira. Inside Soap are terrible for OTT headlines and covers. Rain the One  BAM 22:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What can we do though without a name for the character or the portrayer? This child probably won't even need its own section in the 2011 list. – anemone projectors – 13:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The baby is barely mentioned in the mag, it's all about Amira, Syed and Christian. - JuneGloom    Talk  18:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No name for 'it' then? :( Mayhem  Mario  19:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. - JuneGloom    Talk  19:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully DS will do a story about it, with Qadim returnig, did it say anyhting about him? :) Mayhem  Mario  19:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just that he's returning for a few episodes. - JuneGloom    Talk  20:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mario, it doesn't matter who does any stories, we already rely too much on Digital Spy. Just saying. – anemone projectors – 12:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just saw Amira's baby's 'first appearance on the Red Button scenes, I couldn't quite catch it, but did Qadim use his babby granddaughters name in the scene? If so, shouldn't it be included in the list of future characters on here? Bleaney (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the baby's name wasn't given, and as we haven't put Amira as returned yet (as we're not including Red Button scenes, just proper EastEnders), we shouldn't be adding the baby as present, even with a name. – anemone projectors – 15:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend that, I was suggesting that Amira's baby (If her name had been stated) could have been included in the Future Characters list. But it's a moot point as we dont have her name yet. Bleaney (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah you said future, sorry. If we knew the name, then yeah I guess so. – anemone projectors – 13:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Marie REF
Why does Marie (extra) have a ref- but none of the others do? Im sure AP brung this up before- should we have a ref for all the characters- maybe a good ref would be there Character Profile's on the BBC, only have refs for regulars? If not, can I delete this ref? Mayhem Mario  17:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone going to reply? Mayhem  Mario  19:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference is there for her last name, same as Ina's when it was revealed in credits to be Foot. – anemone projectors – 14:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Masood & Zainab
From this source its says they are now divorced, -.- Just want to clear things up- this source contains spoilers!!! Mayhem Mario  19:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah but according to Syed they're not legally divorced. – anemone projectors – 13:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They are still subject to British marriage law, which mean they are still married unless they apply for a divorce through the courts. They are only 'divorced' in the tradional Islamic sense, which is more symbolic than legal in modern times. Bleaney (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining it. That's what I meant :-) – anemone projectors – 13:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Norman Simmonds
"a devastated Norman is forced to leave the Square for good" - Does this mean he's leaving? – anemone projectors – 13:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Im preety sure that on one of the wikis it said he was going- yeah he departing Mayhem  Mario  14:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the wikis? Wikis aren't reliable sources. The BBC is though. – anemone projectors – 12:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Beale V Tiffany Dean
Just a quicky people, I notice that Tiffany Dean is listed as a regular character and Bobby Beale is listed as recurring. Both characters were born in the same year, and I assume that the actors are of a similar age as well, and so i'm guessing that both actors/characters have the same constraints on how much they appear. I do appreciate that when Tiffany first appeared in EastEnders, she had more dialogue than Bobby generally did, but over the past few months Bobby has had a lot more lines, and appearsto be more crucial to storylines thse days than he did. With this in mind, shouldn't both characters be in the same list, either regular OR recurring? What do people think? Bleaney (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm... I inclined to keep Liam,Tiffany in regular. Im also inclined to keep Booby in recurring. I think the reason Tiff's in regualr is

a) She has had more notbale stories b) she's been nominated for awards for playing the role C) she has her own article

- Mayhem Mario  14:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Jodie, Poppy & Norman Simmonds
they should be down as departing: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/3888941/Its-the-EastEnder-of-this-trio.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustbeemo789 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Jodie is down as departing now. Ive just moved Poppy Meadow and Norman Simmonds into the recurring section of this list (and updated their own entries), as the Digital Spy reference says an EastEnders Spokeperson has confirmed that "Like Norman, Poppy had always been a supporting character, not a regular, however we may well see her return again in the future." As this is one of the very rare times that EE actually confirm whether a character is regular or recurring, I think it is fair to update wikipedia to reflect this. We dont usually mark recurring characters as departing (usually because we dont know if they are or not), but as we have a reference for both characters departing, ive left them in the departing section, but people are free to change this if they want. Bleaney (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Due to this announcement, I think we can move Grace to recuring, I did do it but it was reverted, and maybe Tiff and Liam. Bleaney, can you do it, gotta go. :) Mayhem  Mario  14:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Im not sure if this announcement has anything directly to do with Liam, Tiffany and Grace lol, but in any case I have been bold and added them all to recurring. In the case of Liam and Tiffany, they are child actors who by the nature of their age are unable (yet) to appear regularly. With Grace, I thought we had already agreed that she was a recurring character so have changed her status too. Bleaney (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Original Researchers. Unless it is cleary stated - I don't think anyone should assume someone is a regular again. Rain the One  BAM 15:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been clearly stated by the BBC that Poppy and Norman are not part of the regular cast. In the case of Liam and Tiffany they are child actors, and the convention on here for a long time is that child actors are listed as recurring as they do not and cannot appear regularly due to child employment laws (hardly original research). In the case of Grace, yes your'e right, we dont know for sure if she is or isnt, but then we have similar ambiguity with Sal Martin, Reverend Stevens, Mr Lister and Imam Ali who are all listed as recurring. As I have stated previously on here, if people want to have a discussion about getting rid of the recurring section altogether (due to obvious difficulties in referencing their status) then thats fine, but it should be done as a whole wide-ranging discussion rather than picking individual characters. Bleaney (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3 points. 1) If Poppy and Norman are recurring in the BBC'S eyes then I more iclined to think characters like Rose,Afia are recurring also 2) the recurring section is always going to be hard, it the biggest bit of Original research ever. But then there's not much to sort that out, 3) This may sort it out, and as the BBC call Poppy and Norman 'supporting' charaters I think we should change the subheading to Supporting instead of rceurring, I know that this will mean a lot of changing, but just a thougt Mayhem  Mario  16:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah. Rose and Afia have appeared much more regularly since they started in EE than Grace has. It's the lack of Grace's appearances which has led us to believe she is recurring in the first place. I dont agree with changing recurring to supporting either. The term 'recurring character' is widely used in the parlance of soap operas and in essence means the same thing as supporting character. I agree though, that the whole recurring character section features far too much original research, and if we are going to be drastic I would suggest changing the section to 'Guest' characters, and only list characters that are definately referenced to be appearing. That would mean losing the likes of Sal Martin, Reverend Stevens, Mr Lister and Imam Ali and would also mean presumably that we would have to move the child characters into the main list. I am not necessarily against this (though it would be sad to see Sal, Stevens, Lister and Ali go) but if people are advocting this, I think we should start a new discussion in a new section and allow a stretch of time before making any changes, as I know people will have lots of views. Bleaney (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

so recurring characters do sometimes get profiles on the offcial eastenders website, it's gonna be even harder to tell who is recurring now :/--Mustbeemo789 (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Is This True?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/soaps/3891678/EastEnders-Pat-Butcher-killed-by-cancer.html--Mustbeemo789 (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/soaps/3891678/EastEnders-Pat-Butcher-killed-by-cancer.html  --Mustbeemo789 (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

yes unfortuanally it is 82.0.88.75 (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd82.0.88.75 (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It might be, it might not be. – anemone projectors – 14:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverend Stevens (And the listing of all recurring characters)
Here we go again, another debate about a recurring character! Reverend Stevens last appeared in EastEnders almost a year ago (Max Branning asked him to see Carol Branning about Billie's funeral but Carol asked him to leave). As it has been practically a whole year since he last appeared, can Reverend Stevens be classed as a recurring character any more or should he be a past character? Of course, he could always be added to the list again if he appears again in the future, but in my view, any character that has not appeared for a year should not be classed as recurring any more. What are peoples views? Bleaney (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the whole list can never be verified as we never really know if they are going to appear again or not unless an upcoming episode summary suggest otherwise. Maybe we should remove recurring altogether. Any on the list can be moved to their past years, and if sources suggest they are coming back, they can be put into 'guest' category? Might get a little irritating moving them in or out. Re the Rev, common sense suggests that a vicar will be needed again at some stage, but equally, we have no idea if Rev Stevens will be used. Sorry for being so on the fence.  GunGagdin Moan 19:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just thinking that having a year-rule for all recurring charactes will make things easier...Bleaney (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion on two things, i would never class Amy, Kamil as guest or regular if we did merge, but Reverend could return for the 5th wedding of Ian, maybe change recurring to all babys, guest. But whenever we know a character such as Bushra appears on the credits, we list her as returning? Just a thought, then if reverend does appear, returning, 2 month rule, then past? If you understand what im mean great! 92.19.52.212 (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * sorry, its me Mario :) 92.19.52.212 (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We list young child actors as recurring as they do not appear much. I would keep the recurring and guest section as it is useful, but id have a 1 year rule, no appearnace for a year then your in the past. Bleaney (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with removing recurring characters at all. Even if 20 people want rid of it, I will revert you all!!!!! So that's never happening. Rev Stevens is the current vicar so until anything suggests he's been replaced, we should leave him there. People like Imam Ali and Bushra will always appear occasionally as long as there are Masoods in the series, and people like Reverend Stevens and Mr Lister will appear until another person doing the same job replaces them.
 * The 1 year rule might be a good one though. Kenny Morris was listed as recurring, until we thought "he might never come back" and we put him as past, but he came back last week. Perhaps people like that can be listed as past/returning but if they make 2 appearances in a a year then make them recurring again, and then apply the 1 year rule again. Sounds complicated though. – anemone projectors – 13:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * May I remind you Anenome that this is NOT your page, and if 20 people come to agreement on something then YOU WILL ABIDE BY IT!!! Yours is NOT THE LAST WORD! However, in this instance I agree, a 1 year rule seems sensible. Bleaney (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * so for instance if bushra is not seen for a year she goes to past- then if she reappears after this, she will be added to returning, then put in recurring for a year? Quick question, what do we define as recurring, would Kenny be? Mayhem  Mario  17:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't accept the recurring characters section going, and if people want it deleted I won't get into an edit war but I won't agree to it and will fight to get it back! Surely people don't want it gone completely though? It's useful, and true! Kenny Morris is a recurring character but it's impossible to know if he will ever appear again as there are many other police officers. Whereas Reverend Stevens, Mr Lister, Imam Ali, Bushra and others are more likely to appear because of their jobs or who they are links to. However, if Bushra and Zainab have a massive falling out then she might not be appearing. I saw a slap in a preview but don't know what the storyline will be. – anemone projectors – 13:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry AP, but I disgaree. I think if a character appears say on the 6th June, and dosent appear for 6 months (year is to long), then should be put to past. Then if the character is back on the credits on the 9 December, they are added to returning, then put in recurring for 6 months. I think 'recurring' should be classified as babys/children who live on the square but are non speaking roles, and a person who appears at least twice a year. If we allow reverend to stay on, just beacuse of his job, EE isnt the real world- proucers axe cahracters behind our backs all the time. Just saying, can we for the next person who replies, have a clear explanation of what recurring is, and how we classify who is and isnt? Thanks, :) Mayhem  Mario  17:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is AP, your language is unacceptable. In the past you have been accused by the likes of Trampikey of running the EE wikiproject like a dictatorship, and comments like... Even if 20 people want rid of it, I will revert you all!!!!! So that's never happening seem to prove that dont they? As an administrator I thought you would know better than most that consensus is how we decide things on here, indeed, you tell other people this fact often enough, perhaps you should apply it to yourself?? Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I dont agree with the premise that people like Bushra should NEVER be put in the past unless Zainab leaves etc. My view is this -

As we do know, we should discuss any character who should be listed as recurring. Once they are listed as recurring they should stay on the list, but if they do not appear for more than a year, they should be moved to past. If it then transpires that they are to appear again then they should be added back to the recurring list without them being listed as returning (hope that makes sense to everyone). I too agree that we DO need a recurring and guest characters section, but we do need to set some boundaries. People like Reverend Stevens, Mr Lister or Imam Ali can easily be relaced with other vicars/market inspectors/imams, so there is no guarentee they will appear again. Even in the case of Bushra, we could easily find out one day that she has died or moved away without an appearance, so noone in the recurring/guest characters section should have a permanent position, hence why I think a 1 year rule makes sense. Bleaney (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, kind of. Im not gonna talk about the firts paragrpah of you comment as only having been here like 6 months (here and there), im in no position to put my thought forward.Bleaney, Your last comment- "so noone in the recurring/guest characters section should have a permanent position, hence why I think a 1 year rule makes sense" Just to make clear to everyone- baby's/children are not counted in your comment, right? I personally think we should have a table for 'recurring' whcih has baby's/children, Grace Olubunmi, Sal Martin and all the other regualars/recrruing, and then a 'guest' table (NEW) which has people like (A.T.M) sophie, Iman, Reverend,Bushra. If we choose this im more inclined to say a year in the guest section- and then delete. It would look like this:

Recurring characters

Guest characters

I hope you understand now. I put Faith in the guest section- as i swear she has lfet- not sure though. The people in the recurring box have pernament places (apart from detah.moving,etc.) and the ones in the guest section could change frequently. I added Grace to the recurring section, i think it was a msitake to move her in the first place. Mayhem Mario  18:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand your idea Mario, but unfortunately I dont agree! Take Mr Lister for example. He's been in EE since 2008, never appearing for more than 1 or 2 episodes at a time, yet always popping up every few months or so. So he is in the very essence a recurring character. He deserves to stay listed as its likely that he will appear again. However, if one of these recurring characters doesnt appear for a whole year, I then think its reasonable to assume that they may not return at all, so should go into the past. The problem with separating the guest from the recurring list is that we dont always know who will end up recurring and who will just be temporary. By having the lists together, we can kind of cheat a bit! In reference to children, I thnk the same rule applies. In reality, its highly likely that child characters will appear every so often, so they can happily remain as recurring characters with never nearing the 1 year rule. The only exceptions to this are likely to be Billy's children Janet and William, and in this instance I would apply the 1 year rule. If we dont see them for a year, then they should be put in the past.

By the way, it would really be nice to have some other people make their views known on here, so we can reach a consensus! Bleaney (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the problem I think will occur. I think we will all be adding- taking away characters so much. I agree with you Bleaney- the table toegther is better. But then out of this huge discussion we get one thing- if a character does not appear for a year goes into past? :/ I thinkit should be lowered to 6 months. I just think years to much. That character could have left for all we know, and never return but is on our list for an extra year beacuse 'we are all too worried to take him off incase he return's'. I jsut think in a year's time we will be having the same discussion. And me and Bleaney want other people to comment!!!!!!!!! Mayhem  Mario  19:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont think it will constitute much adding/taking away IF we have a 1 year rule, for instance Imam Ali often doesnt appear for 5,6,7 months at a time, so a 1 year rule would cover him. It certainly wont create any more work than we have now when we list guest characters. Bleaney (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Im still not happy about this. If a character who was recurring, comes back, I think they should be put to returning and then once they appear put into recurring for a year. AND YES BLEANEY IVE AGREED A YEAR IS GOOD ENOUGH :D. BUT. Reverend hasnt appeared for a year- right? Then we have got to be strict- he goes to past- despite his job. Im willing to compromise, but the retrnign, recurring thing i feel storngly about. BUT. Here is another thing. Sophie is only going to appear for a few eps, but then I had to class her as recurring, but if there was a guest column.... :) Mayhem  Mario  19:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats why we should keep recurring and guest characters together in 1 section, so the likes of Sophie can be added and removed without fuss. So OK, a 1 year rule we both agree with, so as it stands Reverend Stevens should be removed and put in the past. And ok, I can agree that if he is isted in spoilers then characters like him can be listed as returning, and then recurring again once he appears. So I think we agree on everything Mario ;-) Additionally we could put a hat note at the top of the recurring and guest characters section, saying that no character should be listed unless they have appeared in the last year. I am tempted to just do it Mario, but we should allow others to comment (please do!) and I know that AP doesnt have regular internet access at the moment, so we should give him time to rspond with his thoughts. Bleaney (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D Nah, they're gonna get in a mood if we go ahead and do it- all we've got to do is move reverend to past. Right? We shoudl check the dates for the others, maybe next to them we put hidden notes- so we know how long they've got left in the table??? I think with the returnig rule 1) it will make it easier to understand 2) it will look like EE has loads of returnign characters which is good (NO DEPARTING CHARACTERS, BOOOO!!!). Cough. But I bet (no offense) when other users FINALLY comment- they'll disagree. :/ Mayhem  Mario  19:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

One problem- If we do the one year rule- Harry (along with many others) should still be listed as recurring. hmm.... Mayhem Mario  19:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, we can always still debate whther a character is recurring or not, and sometimes it will be obvious that a recurring character will not return (e.g. Harry who has been effectively disowned by Jodie and now Vanessa is gone). Bushra could ptoentially be removed earlier than 1 year as after tonights episode it looks unlikely that she will appear again as Zainab's 'friend'. Bleaney (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Overall Consensus
Ive started a new section, the other is getting crowded. So im going to list the new consesus. Whcih we have worked out:

Bushra- appears- put into recurring for year- if dont appear- past- if appear on credits- returning- put into recurring for year- if dont appear- past- if appear on credits- returning- recurring, get my drift?! I just want it to be clear what the new consesus is,

NOTE- THIS IS NOT THE REAL AND FINAL COPY OF IT. THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT COULD BE. :) Mayhem  Mario  19:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * May be a bit complicated Mario, how about this -

FINAL CONSENSUS
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 oved to the past. BUT id they are noted to be appearing again after this they are listed as returning, then recurring again? Bleaney (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah that's it. Reword a little- If ANY recurring/guest hasnt appeared in a year they go to past- if they appear on credits after this- they are listed as returning, and then put to recurring after they appear. Mayhem  Mario  19:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree, we also add an invisible hatnote thingy at the top of the recurring/guest section stating this rule. Bleaney (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine this will go down well (sorry, I do hate to dissent when it's obvious that a lot of thought has gone into the current proposals), but I think the editors at Talk:List of Coronation Street characters came to the right decision when they concluded that it constitutes original research to make guesses about anyone's contractual status. Instead of creating new rules of thumb about who should be listed where, when and for how long, I think the fundamental verifiability problem needs to be addressed. Frickative  00:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is the case, do we have any option other than to get rid of the recurring list completely? Bleaney (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't see any issues with what we've been doing for the last however many years. Can't we just leave it as it is? I don't think we should remove any of them, apart from maybe Reverend Stevens, who hasn't appeared in a long time, and Bushra who has now fallen out with Zainab. Both can go to "returning" if we see them in credits. We get a couple of weeks notice for that. The one year rule seems ok but we shouldn't use that for people like Harry Gold because he's obviously gone. Sometimes it depends on what we've seen on screen! – anemone projectors – 14:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's kind of what we have agreed AP, but as Frickative points out, unless we can prove characters are recurring, it does count as original research. This must be addressed! Bleaney (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, so I have deleted Reverend Stevens, Bushra and Zulekha Abbasi from the recurring list and added them to the past. Rev Stevens on the grounds that he hasnt appeared for over a year, and Bushra (and by extension Zulekha) because it appears that they are no longer friends of the Masoods. As stated many times on here, IF they are credited again in an upcoming appearance they can always be added to the returning section and then the recurring section. I have also added a hatnote at the top of the Recurring/guest section saying that no character should be included in the list if they have not appeared for more than a year (This does not mean of course that we cant get rid of them sooner, if its clear they wont be returning). Unfortunately none of this answers the very difficult question of whether listing recurring caracters at all constitutes original research, but I feel perhaps we need a long-term wide-ranging discussion on this, maybe at another time! Bleaney (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer the old way, AP's view is also mine. It works for EE... besides a recurring character can hang around for more than a year. Rain the One  BAM 21:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't prevent people being re-added if they pop up again, but the very definition of a recurring character is that they make intermittant but semi-regular appearances. A year or more without an appearance is hardly semi-regular is it? If people propose that we change things back, then I agree with Gungadin and Frickative that we need to have a discussion first on whether the whole idea of a recurring character list conforms to Wikipedia's Original Research policy. Bleaney (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do like the recurring section but if we did get rid of it, we'd have to stop calling characters recurring in their articles unless we had a source, so the infobox bit that says "present, recurring" would have to go or change somehow. We would have to move all characters into the same section, whether they are regular or recurring, and I suppose the "1-year rule" would apply to that for the ones we would consider recurring. But I'd quite like it to stay as it is. It did sound like people wanted these recurring characters removed for good and not merged elsewhere, which is why I was getting annoyed before. – anemone projectors – 14:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, Reverend Stevens is in the 4 November ep. - -  JuneGloom    Talk  15:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol! :)  GunGagdin Moan 16:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! So the Rev is back? Good, i'm glad, at least it solves that particular problem. My views on the recurring section as a whole? Of course I would prefer it to stay, after all WE KNOW that the likes of Sal Martin, Rev Stevens, Imam Ali and Mr Lister ARE recurring characters. However I do concede that we cannot reference this, and so in essence it is original research. But i'm quite happy to let this quietly drop so we can keep the section as it is (though still maintaining the 1 year rule and hat note) Bleaney (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a further note, if we follow the 1 year rule, then technically Reverend Stevens never left, as Billies death anniversary is today/tomorrow and the Rev appeared just after then. As he is now mentioned in credits he just stays as recurring, not returning. Bleaney (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's rather funny! Yes Rev Stevens appeared a year ago today – anemone  projectors – 13:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was nice to see the Rev back today. Looks like he's quite involved with Rose and Dot over the next week or so, it might even be his biggest storyline to date!! Bleaney (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yusef
Is down as departing although the source says "claims that show villain Yusef Khan (Ace Bhatti) will be killed off in the soap's upcoming B&B fire storyline" claims beings the operative word. Should he really be down as departing when its a claim made by the sun?D4nnyw14 (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, his departure has not been confirmed by the BBC, and so should not be listed as departing, however likely the rumour is. Bleaney (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that mean we can't add Peggy, Simon or David as returning either? – anemone projectors – 13:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In which source does it state this?! Mayhem  Mario  13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Sun names them all but not sure if it's one source or two. See Peggy's article. – anemone projectors – 13:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you're being sarcastic but we shouldn't add Peggy, David or Simon to returning nor Yusef to departing until confirmed by the BBC or a reliable source. D4nnyw14 (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The articles have been updated but all say "according to The Sun", though the infoboxes do "confirm" it. Also, the past list has had them removed. – anemone projectors – 13:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 26 October 2011
Well this is stupid, Yusef delete from 'departing' as it's a rumour- nothing confirmed. Also per discussion we decided to put Tiffany and Liam in 'Recurring'.

Mayhem Mario  10:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wait 'till tomorrow. It expires then. GSorby  –  Ping!  10:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This sucks : Mayhem  Mario  10:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Also AP are you an admin?, if so you can do the above, but also add peggy,david and Simon. Mayhem  Mario  13:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah but Yusef needs to be removed as unconfirmed, then Peggy, Simon and David can't be added for the same reason. – anemone projectors – 14:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Peggy (etc) are confirmed by a source, Yusef is just a rumour, the title has a question mark in ;) Mayhem  Mario  14:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still not officially confirmed though, and Yusef is as much "according to The Sun" as the other three. – anemone projectors – 14:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Blah. Blah. Right, we can include Yusef too. Mayhem  Mario  14:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should exclude them all for now ;-) – anemone projectors – 14:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * sigh -.- Mayhem  Mario  14:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Returns for Pat's exit
Now I know that there have been reports from various sources for ages that there will be various returns of characters for Pat's exit. The Sun reported that David and Simon Wicks as well as Peggy Mitchell would return for Xmas. There was however no confirmation from the BBC. Now we have a recent report from the Daily Star that David Wicks will return for Xmas. Still no confirmation from the BBC, but at least this time Digital Spy have re-reported it, practicall stating it as fact. Personally, all these rumours suggest to me that some or all of these characters WILL return over Xmas, but up until now we have resisted them being added to this list as we dont have official confirmation from the BBC. But now that Digital Spy have reported the return of David, should we bite the bullet and list him? Me thinks that the BBC may say nothing at all, leaving the returns as a 'surprise' for viewers for Xmas day, so there is a quandry. What do people think?


 * From——it sounds very much as though TPTB will try to keep any returns quiet for as long as possible - but while it's perhaps likely at this point that French will return, I'd feel uncomfortable using either the Daily Star, or Digital Spy reporting on the Daily Star, as a reliable source. Same goes for The Sun, really, given that it's not unheard of for them to invent soap comings and goings entirely. Frickative  19:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * you're absoultely right, the tabloids have been known in the past to completely fabricate soap happenings. What makes me think this is different though is that BOTH the Daily Star and Sun have reported David Wicks return, many other news and entertainment sites have re-reported it AND even Digitalspy have covered it (and Digitalspy are normally very careful not to report on uncredited rumours) As you say, the BBC have pretty much said they will not confirm any returns so not to spoil the plot for viewers. So therefore we may get no confirmation at all. Then again, you notice that although the star reported that David will return, it said nothing about Simon or Peggy... Bleaney (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason I'm quite wary of using second-hand reporting from Digital Spy is that - although you're quite right, normally they are very cautious about fact checking - they do still report on some absolute tripe from time to time, such as the News of the World assertion last May that Betty Driver was retiring from Corrie - which reportedly caused the actress some considerable distress. I'm browsing through the Pat coverage now, and of the articles I've read (RTE, Press Association, Huffington Post, Metro), all credit The Sun as their source. I think, given the level of coverage, it might perhaps be appropriate to mention it in the Development sections of the relevant articles, but my inclination would be to keep it out of this list, and the lead sections/iboxes. (Though if I was a gambling woman, I'd happily put a fiver on it turning out to be true!). Frickative  20:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think if Daniel Kilkelly had reported it on Digital Spy we could trust it but it's not, it's someone else and I find that when other people report stuff on EastEnders on Digital Spy, it's not always true, it's just some rubbish that was reported elsewhere ;-) – anemone projectors – 15:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Supporting characters??
Last week's Inside Soap had a comment from an EastEnders spokesperson calling Poppy a "supporting character". I am thinking now that we should use this term instead of "recurring" and "guest". Does anyone support this? I think it would solve the issue of when someone is recurring or guest (though still no real distinction between supporting and regular), but many infoboxes will need to be changed. – anemone projectors – 15:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I brang this up actually- about two weeks ago?, anyway all for it :) Mayhem  Mario  16:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally say we should keep them as Present; regular etc. But if we must chnage them here are some suggestions:
 * Present; support
 * Present; supporting
 * Present; minor??
 * Meh I dunno, but personally I say keep them regular if they have a EE profile. GSorby  –  Ping!  16:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I like 'supporting' as a blanket term, but I do still think that unless we have a reliable source on an actor's contract status, then guesswork has no place in the infobox. Frickative  16:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is 'guesswork' is going to be a ongoing thing. I think what we should do is


 * Amy Mitchell would be present, supporting
 * Grace Olubunmi would be present, regular
 * Poppy Meadow would be present, supporting (departing)

Only babies/children should be supporting.

Guest characters

and then: people like Sal, Lister, rev, should be put in present, guest? Mayhem Mario  17:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I dont think we should change to supporting. Recurring is an established term in soap parlance for characters who do not permanent contracts. The difference between guest and recurring is sually quite easy to discern. Bleaney (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Kinda of easy to tell the difference to be honest. Example, Rob Grayson, GUEST. Another example Rev Stevens, Recurring! A recurring character is a character who appears in the show for, let's say, two months. Anyone below two months can be considered guest? GSorby  –  Ping!  23:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion that Mario "brang" up before wasn't about changing to "supporting", this is a term we haven't heard before. If it's what the show itself uses then why shouldn't we? But if you don't want to, then we won't. I don't want to split guest and supporting. I want to combine them and not call anyone a guest. Reverend Stevens is no way a guest character. And how can only children be supporting when we have a source to say Poppy is? My point was to only use "Regular" and "Supporting", and to use "Supporting" because we now know the show uses that term. – anemone projectors – 13:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The only reason we have this supporting label is because a BBC spokesperson used the term when describing Poppy and Norman, probably due to the fact that recurring is less well known in the UK as opposed to the USA. But lets face it, they mean the same thing. And as I have previously said, recurring is the label used for these types of actors/characters. I say keep recurring. Bleaney (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I like "supporting" - I love "recurring". It sounds better - I cannot explain why. I think changing from recurring after all this while... well it may create a bit of hoo-har with the IP's too. Rain the One  BAM 02:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So we'll just leave it as it is then :-) – anemone projectors – 14:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Asking Premission
I was just wondering if i could put Yusef in the Daparting characters because it says a source has confirmed he will die in the fire at the B&B this was confirmed on the mirror if you want to check — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butler97 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll wait 'till tonight and have a look. If I see it I will add him. Cheers, GSorby  –  Ping!  16:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's been confirmed, but this is the article - . - JuneGloom    Talk  16:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Faith O.
Has she left? Not sure if she has or not. :) Mayhem  Mario  17:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone said an interview she did said she had finished filming. I don't know if that means she hasn't done more filming yet to be shown. Let's wait for E20 to end and find out. – anemone projectors – 13:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * She say in an interview that she finished filming ages ago... not sure what the point in waiting is. Rain the One  BAM 14:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree Mayhem  Mario  19:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because she's finished filming doesn't mean she won't appear in another episode. – anemone projectors – 13:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont watch E20, I take it that series 3 has ended, but is Faith now definately gone from Walford? Someone deleted her from this list, but the last time I checked, the last few episodes of the E20 list of episodes page had not been updated, so im in the dark. Is she now gone, and did E20 give us any indication whther we will see Grace again? Anyone know?? Bleaney (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I missed the last E20 omnibus so won't be able to update it until I've got internet access back at home. So I can only guess that Grace still lives on Albert Square and may pop up again at some point, but I guess we'll never know until we see her. – anemone projectors – 13:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just decided to look on Faith's twitter and it says she's left Walford, but we had no doubt about that. As for Grace, it looks like she's gone but she still lives on the Square. Ellen Thomas was in the Children in Need stuff, and was also on stage live with the rest of the cast, but so was George Layton so that means nothing really as he's also long gone. – anemone projectors – 15:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Grace is one of those Sal Martin types so... GSorby –  Ping!  15:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh we've left her in as recurring, I wasn't sure. Maybe that's a good idea. I'm sure she'll pop up now and then when the community needs stuff doing. She should be friends with Dot, Cora and Rose, right?! – anemone projectors – 15:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well...maybe not Cora as she laughed when Abi smahed up Grace's garden! Typical of her though :) GSorby  –  Ping!  15:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I liked it back when they had groups of oldies who were besties too! Like when Nellie was in it. But Cora and Grace would certainly be interesting. – anemone projectors – 14:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Rainie
i think she has left :/--Mustbeemo789 (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking that too is it true. Also i heard that BIlly, Amaira and tyler are leaving in 2012 are any of these true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butler97 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Rainie has not yet left the soap, as for Amira Tyler and Billy, I haven't heard of any departures either. GSorby  –  Ping!  12:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

We saw Rainie leave in one of last week's episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.234.49 (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Replying to 92.8.234.49, Rainie's departure is exactly like that of Christian's, he left for a month and is now returning, which is what is happening with Rainie. Mayhem  Mario  11:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the source for that MayhemMario? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.76.105 (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the source that says that Rainie or Tanya Franks have left EastEnders? Bleaney (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

They don't formally announce every departure. They didn't announce the departures of Glenda or Lucas. Glenda's departure only came out because Glynis Barber posted about it on her own website - it wasn't announced by the show. We saw Rainie leave last week. What do you think she was just moving out of Tanya's? In which case what was that speech about not wanting to be a burden about and why did Cora tell her to "go quickly"? It's like watching Peggy's last episode and wondering if she's really gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.76.105 (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Back in June TF said she was contracted until the end of the year. She obviously chose to leave or they chose not to extend her contract. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a324850/tanya-franks-excited-over-eastenders-future.html There is no source which suggests she hasn't left or will be back in a month. And you can't ignore what happens in the actual episodes.


 * The end of the year hasn't happened yet. I believe someone contacted Franks, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders – anemone projectors – 13:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

How long ago did they contact her? What was the point of the scenes last week if they weren't an exit storyline for Rainie. These scenes tie in with what Tanya Franks said about her contract. Yes she COULD come back again but so could any number of characters. As for this 'end of year' argument I doubt she is going to return and then leave again within the space of 2/3 weeks. Not with everything else that is scheduled to happen over xmas. She isn't mentioned in this week's spoilers. OK I will trust the judgement of you lot here, after all you have never been wrong before. :)
 * Christian's departure wasn't announced, nor was Max's. Why is Rainie any differnt? GSorby  –  Ping!  15:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In both of those cases the actors gave interviews and confirmed they were only taking a break. Both of those characters are also main characters who were central to ongoing storylines, it was obvious they hadn't left for good as if they had their exits would have been publicised. Rainie, despite being around for a good few months this stint, was still pretty much a supporting character. The show didn't announce the departures of Glenda or Lucas either by the way. I suppose we should then add them back to the current characters in the interests of fairness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.76.105 (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To explain things, here we go-


 * Christians 'temporary departure' was announced here
 * Max's 'temporary departure' was announced here
 * But then Rainie's seem to have not, but Wood (Max) confirmed it was a temporary departure, 10 days after he left, so we should wait at least 10 days, untill a tabloid reports on it. I admit it was true, Lucas and Glenda did not have 'reports on their exits', they were regulars as is Rainie. I personally think we should get a user on here to email Franks once again, to ask whether or not she is returning or has left. Mayhem  Mario  18:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

She's included in a compilation of characters who departed in 2011 in this video on the official EastEnders website. I think that should be proof enough, no doubt some will find a way to argue with it. 86.165.55.160 (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No that is proof enough. Thanks Brian. Rain  the 1  05:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Jill Marsden
Although this is insufficent evidence, I think Jill Marsden is returning. Walford Wiki have been correct on numerous occassions when it comes down to characters returning and departing, etc, such as they listed Norman, Poppy and Jodie as departing, before any tabloids had reported on it, aswell as the departure/temporary, of Rainie, on top of the return of Mickey and Harry Gold. Ive been watching this website for quite a while, and it always seems that it is reliable. Now, anyway, Jill Marsden, you type her name into Google Images, and you just get screenshots of the character, Walford Web, renowned for its promo gallery, dito, just a screenshot. See here. Walford Wiki have got hold of any never seen before promo shot of Stanton as Jill, located here, you have to scroll down a bit to get to it, which seems that EE are planning the characters return. Although, I believe this is insufficent evidence, I just want to give everyone a heads up. Mayhem Mario  18:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes she is returning. However, until there is a source to say that, then we can't add her to returning. GSorby  –  Ping!  21:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * George, how do you know if there's no source? Are you basing it on the same reasoning as Mario? Just curious. – anemone projectors – 14:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yusef (again)
i think its safe to say he's departing :)--Mustbeemo789 (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, no source. I know he's departing, but we can add it here without a source. GSorby  –  Ping!  11:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you answer my above question? :-) – anemone projectors – 14:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet we include David Wicks to departing without a source from the BBC???? Bleaney (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * David is returning, we don't have him as departing (as he hasn't returned yet, and we don't know how long he's staying). We have reliable sources for this. We have nothing for Yusef (afaik) – anemone projectors – 14:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

told you yusef was departing :)--Mustbeemo789 (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes like I said, I KNEW Yusef was leaving the soap, but there was no source to back it up, and with no source, we couldn't add him to departing. All the spoilers said "Someone to die in B&B Fire" or something like that, they all said it could be Yusef. GSorby  –  Ping!  12:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We all knew he was departing, it was blatantly obvious. No need for "told you so's". This isn't a competition to see who has more inside information. We only deal in verifiable, sourced facts. – anemone projectors – 13:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Grace (again)
I've just seen that Grace has been rmvd from the list and added to past by someone, is there a source to prove this? Mayhem Mario  17:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Urr no? That should be reverted. GSorby  –  Ping!  17:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

✅ - Confirmed Grace has departed. Mayhem Mario  16:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Andrew Cotton a regular?
He is listed as part of the main cast, but do we have anything to verify this? Seeing as we know Heather's departure is imminent i'd say he should be classed as a recurring or a guest character until we can prove otherwise. Bleaney (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I was the one to move him, which could be a mistake. Im not sure, hes appearing a lot lately, especially more next week. Mayhem  Mario  19:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd class him more as a recurring, but I think regular is fine if he's to have a more on-screen part in the upcoming episodes. JackJackUK (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a source to say he will leave with Heather? Rain  the 1  04:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Has there been any source to say he joined the permanent cast of EastEders? Bleaney (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He has a mother in Walford as well, but I think he's recurring. Then see what we think once Heather goes. He's another Grace O/Harry G character! – anemone projectors – 16:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Amira and Afia
Why are they still Shah and Khan on this list when their articles are both Masood now? 81.132.107.214 (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because they only just got moved and of all the things that needed changing, this one was forgotten about! – anemone projectors – 13:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Character durations?
Why is their no field for the characters duration in the show like on the Coronation Street, Emmerdale or Hollyoaks pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reli source (talk • contribs) 00:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It does seem pretty strange not to include the duration dates, especially when less necessary fields (e.g. "previous actors") are included in the table, especially when considering that actor information can be found on the individual character pages as well. However, on Wikipedia it is consensus that matters, and the consensus here states that the columns shown are the ones that should remain. Burbridge92 (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes you think previous actors' names are less important than durations? I think they are more important. We added them because we had no list of actors. I don't think we need to know the durations of characters when we see what characters are in the programme. – anemone projectors – 15:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because we don't need it and it clutters up the page. Just because one article has something, doesn't mean this one should too. – anemone projectors – 13:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It was only a suggestion, why the attitude? I just don't take Wikipedia as seriously as some of you no lifers do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reli source (talk • contribs) 22:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He was only giving you an answer without going into detail. GSorby  –  Ping  22:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no attitude intended, it was a straightforward answer from my point of view. I apologize if it came across wrong. – anemone projectors – 13:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sasha Dixon
An upcoming character is Sasha Dixon (added to 2012 others), just thinking she's possibly related to Ray Dixon? – anemone projectors – 14:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Likely enough but we dont know if it's his mum, sister, daughter or whoever. Bleaney (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I immediately assumed wife, but we'll have to wait and see! – anemone projectors – 14:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's his daughter but, I don't have a source. GSorby  –  Ping  13:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So how do you know? – anemone projectors – 13:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I read somewhere on a news site, I can't remember and it was too long ago to look through my history, I thought it was some made up shit, but now seeing she's upcoming then...but Walford Wiki lists her as Ray's daughter and that's always been right. GSorby  –  Ping  14:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Walford Wiki isn't always right. They put Keira Salter for Kira [nolastname]. Anyway, we know now. – anemone projectors – 14:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

DCI Marsden
shes now got a profile on the official EE website, shouldn't she be moved to regular?--Mustbeemo789 (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, she had one when she appeared in 2010. I think she leaving at the end of January anyway, so there is no point. Mayhem  Mario  10:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Kat Slater
Why is Kat SLater listed as 'returning' on here and on the Kat Slater article? I know its been widely reported that Jessie Wallace is taking a 3 month break from the show, but she's still under contract, so has never really left. We haven't even had the beak confirmed by the BBC! Bleaney (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise she was listed as returning. I didn't realise she had suposedly left. She hasn't, so she shouldn't be listed there. – anemone projectors – 14:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Bleaney (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sasha
Is there a source to say that Sasha is going to appear more? I know it in real life would be obvious that she was, but EE is not real, as we have reliazed from the sudden dissapearance of Grace, etc. It's a bit of OR if we say she is, so any comments? Mayhem Mario  16:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you can't say. Since she's in the Others table, it'd be safe to remove the dash and added any further dates that we know she will be appearing on. GSorby  –  Ping  16:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, we can assume it was a one-off, until we know otherwise. – anemone projectors – 16:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

i am sasha fierce  GunGagdin Moan 17:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * no you're not :-) – anemone projectors – 14:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sasha Dixion
IS she Appering again if not add to the past Characters because at the moment she is nowhere at the moment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butler97 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At the moment she is not. That is why, about a month ago, moved her to the past list. Mayhem  Mario  16:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

She is nowhere at the moment not in past or present just thought you would like to know
 * She was only in one episode, we tend not to list one episode characters in the past characters list. – anemone projectors – 16:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 March 2012
Heather Trott

217.43.209.204 (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Heather Trott


 * Heather has been removed from the list. I assume that was what you were requesting? - JuneGloom    Talk  22:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Amy Mitchell baby/ies
We have two children down for playing Amy Mitchell, but in a recent All About Soap interview, Rita Simons praised the child who plays Amy. So can we assume that only one child plays Amy, and that child is unknown, and Natalia and Kamil Lipka-Kozanka are past "actors", and have been since Amy became a toddler, featuring more often? – anemone projectors – 16:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wakey wakey! Looking for thoughts and answers here :-) – anemone projectors – 15:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviousy she is just played by one actor now, but who? It could be one of the twins, but we cant be sure. Mayhem  Mario  16:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It could be one of the twins, but who knows. It seems wrong to say she's currently played by them both when it's clear that she's not. – anemone projectors – 16:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly, I dont know whether we should delete the twins, as one of them may still be portraying her, so what should we do? ! Mayhem  Mario  16:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I say put the twins names in the past, an then utuncredited for present. As that is exactly what we know - Amy was played by these twins but now its an uncredited actress who may or may not be one of the twins). Bleaney (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with that. – anemone projectors – 12:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Recurring cast clearout
Should the likes of Jimmie Broome, Sophie, Bev Gregory and Ali still be listed as recurring? Im not sure that the likes of Jimmie, Sophie and Bev Gregory have appeared enough times to earn a recurring label, despite the fact it is perfectly possible that they will appear again. In the case of Ali, I doubt Tamwar and Afia will be hiring him again! Bleaney (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Jimmie, remove Sophie, Ali and Bev. Mayhem  Mario  16:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And your reasons are???? 21:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep them all. If Maria Da Costa can come back, so can anyone else. Keep to what we previously agreed (leave them for a year), right? – anemone projectors – 13:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that is a lazy idea IMO. Waiting for something that may not happen - a year. Just do a little searching, find out what the actor is doing. Rain  the 1  13:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes the year rule still applies (Sal Martin is coming up to it) But it is rediculous to suggest that we keep every single character who has made more than one appearance for an entire year! Bleaney (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ok, let's look at them individually. Jimmie is a colleague of Ritchie Scott, though his most recent storyline (about Roxy/Amy) is over. I think we should leave him in. Sophie is still Whitney's boss, so I feel she should stay and the rule should apply to her. Bev can probably go as that storyline is over. Ali I'm not sure about as he might still work at the restaurant, though it does seem unlikely after the incident! So he could be removed as well. – anemone projectors – 14:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, at the very least Bev and Ali should go now!! Bleaney (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The imminent departure of Aunt Sal...
It's coming up to a year (4 April) since we last saw 'Aunt' Sal Martin appear on EastEnders. As per previous discussions on here, and the hatnote at the top of the Recurring and guest characters section, Recurring characters should be removed from this list if the have not appeared in the last year, so... she is due for the chop in a few days time, and I plan to do this if noone else has. I thought it was worth mentioning as this is really the first time that the 1 year rule will come into force (and I know that many people may question why Aunt Sal has suddenly dissappeared from this list).

But before I move Aunt Sal to the past (in a few days time of course!) I just want to check she is not credited to appear in any forthcoming episodes. How do I check that by the way people?? And will anymore future episode details be released between now and Wednesday (4 April)? Are forthcoming episode details released by the BBC on a certain day? Anyone got any ideas?? Bleaney (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sal is not due to appear in any upcoming episodes. GSorby  –  Ping  16:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks GSorby, will we get anymore details for upcoming episodes between now and wednesday? Bleaney (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The most future episode we have details for is 10 April. Tomorrow we'll have 11 April. On Thursday we'll have 13 April. Etc, etc. We used to have another week from tvtv.co.uk but that site isn't as up to date as it used to be. – anemone projectors – 13:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The great Sal has sadly been removed from this list. I can only hope she appears again and can be re-added to this list. Bleaney (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Lorraine Who??
I saw in Inside Soap that Lorraine had a different last name... was this an error? She's defintely Salter in the credits... – anemone projectors – 15:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * She's listed as Lorraine Stevens, as she is in one of DS's articles too, mayeb she got married, only time will tell.... Mayhem  Mario  16:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems odd though that she's credited as Salter but listed as Stevens in other places. Maybe we'll find out. – anemone projectors – 16:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Lorraine Salter Surname
This is a bit of a pain. On the end credits of tonight's episode of EastEnders, they named Lorraine as "Lorraine Stevens" and on the episode's summary page, it credits Lorraine as Salter. Any ideas on what to do here? GSorby –  Ping  20:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sometimes they publish the credits differently on purpose, maybe it was so we didn't twig who "L Stevens" was. – anemone projectors – 13:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * She's Stevens in later credits now – anemone  projectors – 13:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The question now is - do we change it as her "common name" or not? – anemone projectors – 13:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So what are we going to do? I've now created Lorraine Stevens as a redirect, by the way. – anemone projectors – 13:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we going to keep Salter as her common name or what?! – anemone projectors – 14:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I say Stevens on this one! GSorby  –  Ping  14:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think so too. How many episodes did she do in the 90s anyway? – anemone projectors – 14:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know the exact episode count, though I do remember her first incarnation! In total she appeared for 2 brief periods of a couple or three episodes in the 90s which is very similar to what she is slated to do this time round (she has already made 1 brief appearance and is due for another). With this in mind i'd be inclined to leave her as Salter at least until she makes her next appearance. Even after that in terms of screen time they will be pretty even... I guess i'm coming down on the side of leave it Salter. Bleaney (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Lorraine has appeared in 2 episodes in the 1990s. Linda Henry appeared as the character on 28 November 1991 and 17 March 1992. Alcock has appeared as Lorraine for five episodes so far, appearing on 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 March 2012. In total, the character has only appeared in 7 episodes overall. GSorby –  Ping  21:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Memory is getting hazy! In that case, maybe Stevens would be better. Bleaney (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should change her "common name" to Stevens. – anemone projectors – 13:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Whitney leaving?
I've removed Whitney from the leaving list as the source says "Bianca will depart on April 27 when she has an explosive row with Carol, who takes her grandchildren away from Bianca to live with her in the countryside" and "Palmer, [...] will leave [...] to spend more time with her four children". My feeling is that Carol will be able to take Liam, Tiffany and Morgan but possibly not Whitney, who is now an adult, and the four children refers to Palmer's, not Bianca's. – anemone projectors – 12:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Maria de Costa
I think Maria de Costa should be removed from this list and put into the past. Yes I appreciate she has 'recurred' over the years, but like in the case of police officers, there are presumably a number of social workers in Walford, and any one of them could 'take on' the next case in Albert Square, not necessarily Maria. It's not like in the case of Mr Lister where there is only 1 market inspector, or Reverend Stevens who is the local parish vicar. What do people think? Bleaney (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone??? Bleaney (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, I had no idea who she was until I followed your link. Then when I found out who she was, I had no idea she'd been in it more than once. She's too infrequent anyway.  GunGagdin Moan 01:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Move her on to past. There are no current storylines for her. She may come back, but she may not. – anemone projectors – 12:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Bleaney (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Good stuff. Now how about Imam Ali? He's not appeared for almost a year and there's no mention of him in upcoming credits. Shall we move him to past now? – anemone projectors – 13:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should stick to what we agreed an leave it for the whole year. If on the day of his 'year anniversary' he is not credited in any forthcoming episodes he should be removed then. Bleaney (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Recurring list - i've been bold!
I have decided to be bold and have cleared quite a few people from the recurring list. here are my reasons -


 * Jill Marsden (EastEnders) - Yes she is definately a recurring character, but she is not creditied to appear in any forthcoming episodes, and as the case against Ben has been dropped she is not likely to appear in connection to that. DS Crisp is handling Heather's murder investigation, so she is not connected to that either. She could always appear again, but presumably there are many DCI's in Wa;ford so it could be someone else.


 * Lorraine Stevens - No credited forthcoming appearances and all sources indicate that she has completed her 'second stint'. Yes we have a source to say she will die soon, but she doesn't need to appear for this to happen.


 * Imam Ali - As per the 1 year rule, he is not credited to appear after the 12th May which is 1 year.


 * Jimmie Broome and 'Bev' - I know we have discussed these before, but to be honest I dont think 2 appearances automatically makes someone recurring. Again, with Jimmie, he's a lawyer, and may or may not appear again, its not as likely as say Mr Lister or the Rev. With Bev she has only appeared twice in connection with Whitney's employment at the nursery. She doesn't even have a second name!


 * Nico Papadolpoulos - Again, not credited to appear again, and 2 appearances in the space of a week dont qualify someone to be recurring in my book!

Of course, in the case of Bev & Nico they do work on the square, but I think we need to see them a few more times before we leave them to languish on this list for a year! This recurring list is a whole big bit of original research, and it was getting FAR too large. I think we should err on the side of caution before we start classing people as recurring, otherwise this list is liable to get bigger than the present cast section! Of course, please feel free to disagree with me on here if thats what you think! Bleaney (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will go along with that, though I suspect at least one of them will be back. You have didn't move them all to the past list, so I have now done that. – anemone projectors – 13:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Dot Cotton and some 'temp' departures
First of all guys just to warn you that Adam Woodyatt (Ian Beale) has been quoted as taking a 6 week break when the character 'disappears'. Im sure some folks will try to put him in the departing section of this list, but I really dont think he qualifies, after all we havent counted Kat as departed, and she has been gone longer than 6 weeks. And the likes of Phil and Chrisitan have been gone for about that time when the actors were doing panto. In none of these cases I think we should class a character as departing or departed.

However with Dot it is a slightly different story -

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a381663/eastenders-june-brown-i-dont-know-when-ill-return.html

Essentially June Brown has said she is out of contract, so she could be gone longer than 6 months. However, the BBC source in the article above still maintains she is returning. June also claims that Rose has left as well, but again no confirmation from the beeb.

On a more definate note, Lindsey Coulson (Carol) has confirmed that she will return to filming in August -

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a381754/eastenders-lindsey-coulson-i-needed-time-away-from-carol.html

Bleaney (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 May 2012
Departing Characters Ben Mitchell - Joshua Pascoe

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.. I've searched on Google and that is showing up nothing. --5 albert square (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A small comment on this - Inside Soap says a hearse was seen during filming (on the webcam) but they're purely speculating that Ben could be inside it, as well as others. It could be anyone. – anemone projectors – 10:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Mark Jr.
Soaplife magazine are apparently reporting that when Sharon Watts returns she will bring Mark Jr with her (Mark being Michelle Fowlers and Grant Mitchells son). Is this a reliable souce?? And if so should Mark Jr. be added to this list as a future character?? Does anyone actually have access to Soaplife as I actually havent read the article myself?? Bleaney (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can have a flick through the mag in the shop later today, but Soaplife (and All About Soap) tend to exaggerate and speculate a lot. Why would Sharon bring back Michelle's son? - JuneGloom    Talk  14:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I went through the mag and didn't see anything about Sharon or Mark Jr. - JuneGloom    Talk  18:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I read somewhere that she was bringing her own son Dennis Jr(Her and Dennis's child) surely that would make more sense to bring her own child instead of Michelle's --Anna2123456789 (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bare in mind that it's The Sun, but apparently Dennis Jr will be appearing with Sharon - . - JuneGloom    Talk  23:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd take The Sun's word for it and if they are proven wrong, then remove it. As for Soaplife magazine reporting on Mark Jr returning, I looked in the magazine and it was a lengthy article talking about how good it would be for Sharon to bring Mark Jr back with her - no where did it say they were doing that though - just what the writer wanted out of Sharon's return - good reception for her though. Rain  the 1  00:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It makes sense for Dennis Jr to come back with Sharon, but it does look like The Sun are just assuming that he will. – anemone projectors – 10:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article says he is back with Sharon. You are the one assuming AP. Rain  the 1  16:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But why would Mark Jr come back with Sharon when he's Michelle's son? Maybe they were mixing him up with Dennis Jr. I'm just saying, I don't think we should trust it just yet. – anemone projectors – 10:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)