Talk:List of EastEnders characters/Archive 9

Jean Slater
I was confused to discover that Jean Slater was classed as a "regular character" and as such should not be added to returning characters. The fact she hasn't appeared since April (I think) and that was only for two episodes surely means she should be classified as returning? I mean, even an EastEnders spokesperson said she was "returning", so why is this article not? Colourlight (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We never listed Jean as a past character because of the number of times she had made unannounced appearances and the fact it was likely that she would appear again. We often remove characters like this if they haven't appeared for a year, so Libby is still listed. Jean has basically been a recurring character for a while and is now becoming a regular again, so it's technically not a return but it is a reintroduction. — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  20:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand, I just thought that for non-editors I think that they would benefit from Jean being displayed in the returning characters section. Colourlight (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hugo Browning and Ingrid Solberg
Are these two characters really regulars and not recurring? Hugo has only appeared in 10 episodes. Ingrid in 28 which might be enough, especially as Tom Bailey was considered regular and he was in 22 episodes, but he was in online cast lists while Ingrid and Hugo aren't (although neither is Luke). — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  12:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The official cast list the BBC releases to Digital Spy lists her as a regular: http://www.digitalspy.com/soaps/feature/g24691/eastenders-cast-guide-character-pictures/?slide=54 Smurfmeister (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I get the impression that Ingrid may be a regular, although Hugo I would say is definately not. Soaper1234 - talk  1 07:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That list doesn't say she's a regular, and it says she'll be mixing more with other characters when she sets her sights on Keanu, but that didn't last long, and she still hasn't appeared that much. (I thought Ingrid might go the same way as Tom and Gethin but that's just speculation.) Also my episode count didn't include the last 4 episodes just in case anyone complains ;-)  —  ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  10:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also from that Digital Spy page, all the characters have official promo shots apart from Ingrid, and we've often used this as evidence of regularity, as well as position in the credits. Does she have any? Hugo does. I believe both have appeared with other regulars in the end credits, so maybe both are considered regulars. —  ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  10:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hugo was credited with the regular oc when james’ Plan was revealed and ingrid has always been at the bottom of the credits but before child actors and guest characters. Aacfsftw (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Tanya Lauren Cross
Can people stop moving Tanya to past? She hasn't left yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.176.35 (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been confirmed that Joyner only filmed two episodes, hence why she hasn't been appearing so far. Please provide a source to suggest that she will make further appearances. Soaper1234 - talk  20:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I don’t have a source saying she will appear again but there was an article with a picture that looked like Tanya sitting next to Abi’s hospital bed Aacfsftw (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Where was it confirmed that she had only filmed two episodes? If she said that, then she was lying as I know for a fact she is in at least one more coming up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.176.35 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have the article as it could be used as a source? I'm sure this was confirmed as Joyner could only film at nights/early mornings? I personally would imagine she would pop up some time soon, but without a source it is just Original research. Soaper1234 -  talk  23:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * JJ has said it isn't a permanent return and that she'd only had limited filming time. I haven't seen a quote about it only being two episodes though. Have you actually seen one, Soaper1234? Or are you assuming that her non-permanent return amounts to just the two eps she has appeared in thus far? If the two eps hasn't been said anywhere, then she should be added back temporarily. Even without a source logic strongly suggests that Tanya will be there when Abi 'properly' dies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.176.35 (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I’ve searched for hours and can’t find the article. It’s Probably best to leave her as a past character until she appears again then just update her last appearance. Aacfsftw (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It was never said (AFAIK) that it was just 2 eps though, so as far as is officially known her current return stint is on-going. Even without a source, it would be bizarre if it was just the two eps thus far when Abi hasn't died officially yet. There's huge scope for her to appear again, and that's me taking my knowledge of a further appearance out of the equation.
 * Thanks for your help, . I would agree that she should probably be left for the time being. I agree that Tanya should probably reappear since her daughters are very ill but Joyner has stated it was "only a visit" and she is extremely busy with other projects, hence the late night filming. Soaper1234 -  talk  17:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Must admit, when she first returned all the articles I read about her return said it was just a visit and because of her busy schedule with other projects, all her filming with EastEnders was done in the middle of the night. I'm sure she joked that she must love her EastEnders family because of all the 2am filming in the pouring rain. Though she wasn't spotted filming the funeral (though both Jacqueline and Lorna were - to throw us off the scent) I personally think she's gone (cause funeral scenes would be through the day? Not filmed in the middle of the night) But that's my opinion. Doubt she'll appear again, but due to consistency she should be left until after the funeral at least I suppose. ThisIsDanny (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that she isn't back full-time and that it is just a visit. :) but as far as I'm aware neither Joyner or the show has stated that it is just a two episode thing. That is being assumed without proof. I don't know if she's at the funeral but she's definitely in more hospital scenes coming up. Normally when someone returns unexpectedly but not full-time they are at least left for a little while / until they make an appearance that feels like their last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.176.35 (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So where is your source to say she's in future hospital scenes? ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't have one. I never claimed I did. It's from future spoiler info that I have. But there is no source/proof that her return stint has ended yet either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.176.35 (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I know there's no proof her return stint hasn't ended yet, we're all saying we're not sure if it has or not. You said "but she's definitely in more hospital scenes coming up" I'm just curious to know where you got this information from? How do you know for definite? I'm interested in reading it. ThisIsDanny (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I work in the media. I get where people are coming from about not having a valid source but likewise this 2 eps thing seems to have been made up and logic strongly suggests Tanya hasn't appeared for the last time, sources aside. Why in cases of doubt is it assumed that the person has gone as opposed to keeping it open for a little while? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:6DF9:FE00:EDEF:A86B:B36E:B6CB (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Fi Browning
On the official BBC website Fi is still listed as part of the cast while William Boyde, Simon Williams and Adam Astill are all absent. I don’t know If this is kept up to date though. Can anyone clarify. Aacfsftw (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, although were Boyde, Williams and Astill ever listed on the online credits? Soaper1234 - talk  13:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say they weren't updated regularly enough as Derek is still on it. Soaper1234 - talk  13:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Ingrid isn’t there either. Aacfsftw (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah they seem to have given up on the online credits since John Yorke took over. I was hoping it would go back to the old way of listing the actual episode credits including guest characters, but noooo we're still not allowed to know! — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  08:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Melanie Owen to Mel Owen
Do you think her page should be renamed to Mel Owen? On her return, she is credited as Mel Owen, sources refer to as Mel instead of Melanie and throught her page, Mel has been written. Grangehilllover (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support this I suppose, although I feel this is a discussion to be had at Talk:Melanie Owen. Soaper1234 - talk  21:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - I've held off !voting until she made her appearance and the credits rolled - In todays ep she credited as Mel, and the sources all go by Mel so as per COMMONNAME it should probably be moved. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did start it a week or so back, but no one's responded there, so I thought I'd ask here on a more popular page, especially as she's now back. Grangehilllover (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The page was moved already but I would have supported this as well. Half the time I didn't know whether to call her Mel or Melanie but now we can just call her Mel throughout all our articles. — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  08:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just to note in earlier eps she was credited as "Melanie" (0:09 mark) however the article refers to her as Mel and sources now are obviously going by Mel. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Rainie
I know the sun can’t be used here but it has been reliable in the past. (I.e. Lisa Fowler, Kat) Aacfsftw (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A DS article on main page confirms her return — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.252.154 (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * We know, the source was changed to DS after it was published. ThisIsDanny (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

What's the issue with The Sun? Their soap exclusives are generally spot-on even if they do publish a lot of other rubbish.

Josh Hemmings departure.
Hello. I've added 2 more references to further back up Josh's departure. I know that you guys encourage as many references as possible, so that's why I did it. Also, I know I am supposed to add an edit summary, but I accidentally clicked 'Save Edit' twice, thus meaning an edit summary wasn't added. This is why I am adding some sort of edit summary here.

I hope this is ok. I hope I haven't done anything wrong by adding references. Kind regards. User talk:User321a User321a (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * One was enough. I have removed 3 of the 4 that were added. They all say the same thing. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Ciara Maguire
Has Ciara actually left the show? If so, could someone please tell me the date of episode in which she made her final appearance and the episode number, so I can add it to her article. Also, she is not listed on the past characters list either. Could someone please get back to me ASAP with regards to this character, as I am confused. Also, if she is still a current cast member, and is departing, I couldn't find a reference to back it up. Could someone help me out with this too please? I do require some clarity as I am confused. Thanks. User321a (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Joyce Murray
Is it confirmed she won't be in anymore episodes? I haven't seen last night's episode yet so I'm just making sure because characters appear as corpses after their death - sometimes for a while, like Paul Coker or Ronnie Mitchell. — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  09:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it is likely that she will appear tonight, but it isn't confirmed. Soaper1234 - talk  11:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not confirmed either way, so unless there's a confirmation or it's obvious that the character won't appear again for whatever reason, I think we should wait until funerals take place when characters die like this, because of how long Paul was in it for when he was a corpse. — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  19:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added a note to her section. <b style="color: #FF7400;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  20:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If we had upcoming credits like we used to it would be much easier, I honestly thought John Yorke would revert that change! — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  22:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I wondered if you could read this, thanks. — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  09:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, thanks. — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  15:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

In Thursday's episode, Bernadette, Tiffany and Jay are in the chapel of rest where Joyce is in the coffin. We see a bit of a person in the coffin but we don't know if this was Maggie Steed or not. After Paul died, there was a scene where Paul's hand was seen and it was definitely the actor's actual hand but he wasn't credited. So based on that we should still wait (note I haven't yet seen Friday's episode) — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  07:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Pam and Yolande
Pam and Yolande seem to be removed a lot and then reverted so can we discuss whether they should stay or not. I think they should be removed because they only have two guest appearances each and there is no indication that either one will return (I think they should have at least three episodes before being classed as recurring). Personally I think the one year rule is overused and the less people the better. Aacfsftw (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I see that Trish Barnes, Robyn Lund and Corrine Mandel were removed as well. I guess that's ok because of their storylines, but Trish could still recur. However, I'm happy for that to be left. Also I'm ok with Pam and Yolande being removed for now. I think a lot of people don't like this one-year rule and we should have a proper discussion on changing it to 6 months or whatever people want. — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  08:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry that was me. I presumed with all their stories having wrapped up, they would be fine to remove. <b style="color: #FF7400;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  08:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with the one-year rule is that former regulars end up being classed as current regulars due to one-off appearances, while departing regulars are classed as 'former' as soon as the credits role on their final episode. Yolande is a classic example - she hadn't appeared regularly in years, yet was listed as a regular for over a year on the basis of two episodes in 2017, because the rules for recurring characters had been applied. Smurfmeister (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Pam and Charliie (and proposed amendment to the one-year rule)
I really don't think that either of these two should still be under "regular". They've only made a very few appearances each in the past two years, at the very least they should be demoted to recurring or removed entirely. Connorguy99 (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * They are regular characters which is why there is a note to say they have made guest appearances since whatever year. But I was considering posting myself to ask if they should be removed, along with Matthew and potentially Bobby. I think these characters will be announced if they are to return again, but we could still stick to the one-year rule or consider reducing it to 6 months for this type of character. — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  14:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support the four characters mentioned being removed and the one-year rule being changed to a six-month rule. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  15:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you think it should be a six-month rule for all recurring characters? — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  15:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a 6 month rule would be better than a year. Grangehilllover (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say a six-month rule should be applied for all recurring/guest characters that are not clearly current characters (e.g. not Ricky when he didn't appear between January and August). However, I would emphasise the fact that characters should be removed at the end of their storyline. So, based on this, the likes of Mrs Lund would be removed at the end of the month (six months after her last appearance) and Umar and Darius would be removed now as their funeral storyline has ended. Hope that makes sense. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  20:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree with that. I've always said we should remove characters at the end of the storyline, but it's not necessarily always clear when that is. I don't think Darius and Umar will appear again, but if they do, then we would relist them until Carmel departs, for example. So I would support what Soaper suggests. — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  21:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Phew, I'm glad that made sense. Glad you agree. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  00:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no way I am able to accept that Pam and Charlie are regular characters, as they are not. Even Cora is only a recurring character currently, but she at least returns sporadically. I would agree that a six month rule would be more acceptable than a year - I really don't believe that Pam/Charlie belong on the list anymore. Connorguy99 (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pam and Charlie both joined in 2014 as regular characters, which makes the regular characters, but both have made only guest appearances since 2017. I don't know if the change to six-months needs a separate discussion with a proper poll or if it has enough support as it is. — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  14:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I really don't agree that once a character becomes a regular that they are always seen as a regular, Pam and Charlie used to be regulars but now they are only seen sporadically (and we don't know if they'll ever return) so they are recurring at most. I think most are in favour of them being removed - so am I able to make the chances? Connorguy99 (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pam and Charlie are regular characters, that cannot be denied. Saying they're not is the same as saying a character no longer exists just because they left a series. Fictional characters are dealt with differently to real people. Yes they've made guest appearances but overall they are both regular characters, so that cannot be changed. And I think more active WikiProject EastEnders members should be involved in the discussion first. Allow me to ping a few of them:, —  ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  09:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * More active? Or more aggressive? Other people can't get a word in because you're so stuck in your ways, they are past regulars and now just recurring. Connorguy99 (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with - some users are too stuck in their ways and way too protective of their own illogical pet policies. Pam and Charlie changed from regulars to recurring characters. Like Dr Legg and Ethel did. Like Cora has. It’s a fact and it’s a fallacy to say that characters can never be recurring once they have been regulars. I notice it apparently can work the other way round, and we don’t list Jean Slater, Kim Fox-Hubbard or Les Coker as recurring characters even though they started out that way. Certain users on here bend logic to fit their own agenda, it’s been that way on the EE WikiProject for over 10 years and sadly isn’t likely to change while AnemoneProjectors is still ruling the EE articles with an iron fist and throwing his weight around, backed up by his little minions (one of which shouldn’t even be editing Wikipedia anyway because he is basically illiterate and threatens to kill himself any time he doesn’t get his own way). 213.205.198.26 (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion, the proposal is this: change the one-year rule to six months, to be applied for all recurring/guest characters that are not clearly current characters (e.g. not Ricky when he didn't appear between January and August), including regular characters that have left but returned on a guest or recurring basis, however, guest characters should be removed at the end of their storyline. Post below if you support or oppose this. — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  10:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As you know, this has my support. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  11:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Six months is definitely better then waiting a full year. - <b style="color: Purple; font-family: Arial;">JuneGloom07</b> Talk  16:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Especially if the character only appeared in a video clip, like Bobby. Connorguy99 (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I also support it :-) — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  09:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - I support the reduction from one year to six months. One year seems excessive if there is no official confirmation they are going to carry on appearing. Rain  the 1  13:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Have edited the article to remove former regulars who have not appeared for over 6 months as well as a load of recurring and guest characters whose storylines have ended and are unlikely to appear again, as per the discussion above. 213.205.198.26 (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no clue how long certain individuals are trying to slowroll this change for - but it is pretty clear that everyone is on the same page, thank you for your edits. Connorguy99 (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There are more than five members of the WikiProject (and WP:SOAPS), so there may be others who have yet to see and comment on this discussion. It should be left open for a bit to allow them the chance to voice their opinion. There's no need to hurry. - <b style="color: Purple; font-family: Arial;">JuneGloom07</b> Talk  18:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How long must these things remain open? We’re waiting for 8 people to come along and object when that clearly isn’t going to happen. Consensus has been reached. 81.159.235.222 (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support 213.205.198.26 (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

A week since I started the poll is fine. Consensus is now reached, and the one-year rule shall be changed to six months. Discussion closed. — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  11:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Past characters
As the now-past characters have been removed due to the above change, can people removing them please be responsible and add them to List of past EastEnders characters? Also update their infoboxes. Also, don't remove anyone who did appear in the last six months. I've restored PC Gregg Preston and DCI Alsworth, as police officers pop up all the time, but left off Zayan Scott, Darius, Umar, Kandice and Jessica as I think their storylines are over. These characters need to be put on the past list (unless they are "others" with fewer than four episodes): Not doing the full job is just lazy. Thanks. — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  11:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Pam Coker
 * Charlie Cotton
 * Bobby Beale
 * Fiona Payne
 * Matthew Mitchell Cotton
 * Mrs Lund
 * Kandice Taylor
 * Apostolos Papadopolous
 * Zayan Scott
 * Umar Kazemi
 * Darius Kazemi
 * Jessica Jones


 * How passive agressive. No one gets paid to edit Wikipedia. You’re not a manager of people. Do it yourself and get off your high horse, bossy. 81.159.235.222 (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't be rude to other editors. You could find yourself blocked. AnemoneProjectors was simply asking that if you remove characters, you add them to List of past EastEnders characters. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> -  talk  14:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly, because they are no longer listed anywhere. If you can't be bothered to edit Wikipedia correctly then maybe you shouldn't edit it at all. — ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  18:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There’s no need to be so rude and confrontational about it though. Everyone who edits Wiki is an unpaid volunteer, and having experienced editors like you being so snappy and bossy is seriously off-putting to someone considering becoming a regular editor. You clearly know the ins and outs of what to do with these articles, so as a member of the Eastenders Wiki Project, maybe you should just do it rather than moaning at and alienating others. Hardly a welcoming or friendly way for an admin to behave is it? 81.159.235.222 (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're still being rude and confrontational yourself though. AnemoneProjectors wasn't saying he wouldn't do it, he just said that the editor who removed the characters should add them elsewhere otherwise they aren't listed anywhere. It's common courtesy that you complete a job you started. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  19:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's no good saying you want to remove the characters if you don't want to add them to the past characters list. I would rather see the edit reverted than having only half the necessary pages edited. Anyway, thank you Soaper for making the necessary edits :-) I would have done it had I had more time, I just wanted to make sure it was done. And I apologise if I came across as rude but this was not my intention. —  ᴀnemone  ᴘroᴊecтors  20:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Ray Kelly
Do we know that Sean Mahon has made his final appearance as Ray Kelly? As we know from the likes of Ronnie Mitchell or Paul Coker, characters can appear long after their death. As Ray is buried in a shallow grave, there is a chance his body will be found and Mahon could still make further corpse appearances. What do others think? Should he stay listed here? — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  21:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we'll see Ray's body now. I'd say keep him in the past list. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  17:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Flashback actors
So with the recent flashbacks in the Christmas episode, we seem to have added all flashback actors into this list and the List of past EastEnders characters list. I think we would be best leaving the main actor in the lists and then mentioning the flashback actors in the character articles. To add all the flashback actors looks to a reader like the character has been recast, like it does for Martin. Additionally, on the past list, to add the likes of Charlie, Harry, Viv, Lynne and Belinda as being played by these flashback actors most recently makes it look like the characters were not played by their actors for the majority of their durations. Perhaps, leaving the flashback actors out of it but still keeping them in the last appeared in 2018 section would be best? I'm not too sure, but I don't think it's right.

So I'm thinking the past characters list would look like this:

Let me know what you think. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  13:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The only other suggeston I can think of if you want to avoid putting undue emphasis on the flashback actors is to put them second and/or maybe put that actor's duration in brackets after their name. — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  14:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, putting them second sounds like a better idea than wiping them out altogether. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  14:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Or put "(flashback)" after the actor's name? 86.169.63.68 (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Jagger
Jagged SHOULD NOT be credited with the regulars - he has never been regular. Appearently he has "been credited with the regular cast", where? On the official BBC website he is NOT in the regular credits for each episode - neither is Bev or Adam. Connorguy99 (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I also agree that Jagger has only been a recurring/guest character, but in his most recent episode, he was credited with the regular cast. I'd most certainly say that Bev is not a regular character - I didn't realise she was positioned as a regular anywhere? But again with Adam, I think he could be a regular. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  17:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In the end credits. From 11 October 2018, Jagger has been credited with main cast, apart from twice - once he was below Ritchie Scott and the other he was just last apart from Evie. So far he has appeared in 22 episodes from 8 August to 23 November. It's borderline - it could make him regular, even if he has left (any source to confirm that? If not, we shall have to wait 6 months). Although he didn't appear in September. Bev has been credited with main cast but was in 12 episodes so unless she returns, she's not a regular. Adam is in the same situation as Jagger, but has had fewer appearances. Are we going to use the official website's full credits to determine who is regular now? If we agree to do that, I'm happy for them to move to recurring. Jagger can potentially still appear so I think we should apply the six-month rule to him. — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  20:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Jagger should definitely be moved down to recurring, unless he is seen again and then the situation can be reviewed. The official BBC EastEnders website has a list of all the characters they class as regulars after each episode - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0by3k55 . It usually takes them a while to remove people (Ray is still credited despite exiting) but they are often quite quick to add new characters when they are deemed to be regular (Tommy Moon is credited despite appearing again after Jagger's final appearance, so I think that if they deemed Jagger a regular he'd have been added too). Connorguy99 (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While I do agree, I don't think that the credits on the website should be taken as any kind of reference, since the website itself is, as you said, not updated frequently. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  18:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While most of the website is static (the character archives havent been updated since 2016) that section is updated frequently - while they often take time removing an actor's name they are very quick to add them. Connorguy99 (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The character archives haven't been updated because they're archived, they don't do character profiles anymore. I do think the cast lists are a good way to go, at least until if they ever go back to how it was before Sean O'Connor changed the format (probably never). However, Mitch and Evie are starting to be credited with the main cast at the end of the episodes and neither of them are on the credits list online. If we can't use the end credits or the website credits, how can we determine what's a regular and what's a recurring character? — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  18:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

In the 17 January episode, Tiffany tells Dennis that Jagger has gone. I think that means he's gone. My personal feeling now is he had something like a 3-month contract, proved unpopular, it wasn't renewed and he was replaced with Evie. — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  17:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement. Jaggar is gone and has been replaced by Evie. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  17:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Ted Murray
Does anyone know what has happened with ted and if he is ever coming back feels like he's been gone a long old time now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butler97 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * He appeared recently. I believe he was visiting family. — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  14:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Characters to remove (April 2019)
I'm still behind on EastEnders so I don't really know what's gone in the last couple of weeks so I don't know a) the outcome of Ruby's trial, assuming it's over and b) whether Tiffany is no longer involved in the drugs gang. I know Evie has left and that the rape trial happened, but Without giving too much of the story away please, can these characters be removed yet? Thanks. — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  14:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Jagger Rawley (yes he can, see above)
 * Stix Redman
 * Ross Swinden
 * Matt Clarkson
 * Glenn Neyland
 * I'd say confidently that Jagger and Glenn can go. Stix is still appearing, although I think he can be removed soon. Now Ruby's trial is over, I think Ross and Matt can probably go too. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  15:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Animals
Are animals like Lady Di, Dave and Bronson really needed in the recurring characters section? No other soap page list their animals, and rightfully so in my opinion as it is a stretch to call them characters. Connorguy99 (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The animals listed serve, or served, a significant place in the series, but I agree that they're not "recurring characters". Perhaps a different section could be added them, listing the present animals in the series? – DarkGlow (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I hardly think any of the animals serve, or have ever served, as a "significant part of the series. I think the animals should be removed entirely, some aren't even listed (the Taylor family's pet lizard). Connorguy99 (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Dave the cat certainly did, as did Lady Di. I feel as though creating a separate table for the animals underneath the extras section would do. – DarkGlow (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What significant place did Dave or Lady Di ever have...? Connorguy99 (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Dave served a storyline for Dot, and Lady Di had a small storyline with her giving birth to puppies. While insignificant, they still served a purpose in the series. – DarkGlow (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not enough of a purpose for them to be included in a list of characters in my opinion. Connorguy99 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that's your opinion. – DarkGlow (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said. Connorguy99 (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Any animal with their own article or section within a list of characters is included, as any other character is. They have their own articles or sections because there is real-world information about them. That is how the serve a significant place in the series - not by their appearances on screen. — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  11:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No other soap page list their animals,
 * The two Australian soaps include animals in the recurring section... - <b style="color: Purple; font-family: Arial;">JuneGloom07</b> Talk  16:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not even the "Named Extras" (some dating back to the creation of the show) are included in the recurring section, so why are the animals (some which DEFINITELY haven't been seen in the last six months or even years!). Connorguy99 (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus here to remove the pets so can whoever removed them please put them back now? Thanks. — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  20:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've done it myself. — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  20:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Multiple actors
Why does this page list all of the actors that have played certain roles? This page is for the current cast list - the other actors shouldn't be included (similar to the List of Coronation Street characters page). Connorguy99 (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree – if you wanna implement that change, go ahead. – DarkGlow (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This needs to be discussed further before changes are implemented. Regular EE editors should have a chance to get their thoughts down at least (to avoid edit wars). The Coronation Street list is actually the odd one out, as the other British soaps (EE, Emmerdale and Hollyoaks) and the two Australian ones (Home and Away and Neighbours) use the format of listing the previous actors. - <b style="color: Purple; font-family: Arial;">JuneGloom07</b> Talk  01:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The extra actors listed just makes it more confusing and bulky, there is no need for all actors to be listed (especially young babies that would likely have went uncredited) when the whole page is in regards to the current character. The links to the character pages exist and the information to alternative actors can easily be found there. Connorguy99 (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it more, I think it's important to list previous actors, as not to mislead readers into thinking Max Bowden has portrayed Ben Mitchell since the 90s, for example. If anything, I think the Corrie article needs to accommodate previous actors. – DarkGlow (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not think that anyone would assume that, nevertheless even if they did they could simply read further by visiting the page. Connorguy99 (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Editors wouldn't assume it, but casual viewers who are interested in a list of characters might. What's your fixation with removing them? – DarkGlow (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no "fixation", I have given my reasons? What is your "fixation" with rushing this decision before other editors have had the chance to share their opinions? This list of current characters should reflect what is shown in the end credits, the end credits do not list all the past actors. And in some cases "Uncredited" is even listed... why? Connorguy99 (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't a list of cast, it's a list of characters along with the actors that have played them. It's been discussed many times before. And what DarkGlow says is spot on. Wikipedia always assumes that readers are not familiar with the subject they are reading about, so not to list all actors is misleading for those readers. — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  20:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Suspend the six-month rule?
I think we need to change the 6-month rule while filming is suspended. Every week in the soap now last two real-world weeks, so if EE is still on in 6 months, it woult basically become a 3-month rule, because they had planned to show those 6 months of eps over 3 months. If EE were to go off air for 6 months, then all recurring characters would be removed completely, which would be wrong. Really, we should extend the rule by a week for every two weeks that go by, and then freeze it if EE goes off air. Any thoughts? — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  21:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I echo this. I think the only exception should be, as usual, is to remove characters once their storyline has concluded. – DarkGlow (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed about storylines concluding. — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  21:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020
There is a commor missing from Ritchie Scott's duration timeline column. Can somebody please add it? It should be between the 2016 and 2018 parts. 81.99.69.50 (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ – DarkGlow (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2020
Michaela Turnbull has reappeared onscreen now in last night's episode so can someone please add her to the list again? 81.99.69.50 (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * She still hasn't been added.81.99.69.50 (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Still Hasn't.81.99.69.50 (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ – DarkGlow (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks 81.99.69.50 (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Pearl / Mica and others.
For some reason certain users seem unwilling to allow Pearl / Mica and pets Bronson / Lady Di to be removed from the page despite the fact that they haven't appeared in over six months - and in Mica's case a whole year! Currently there is no confirmation on whether Kim will return, let alone her children, and the only information which was ever released regarding her return was for the cameo at Christmas. The rules of the page are very clear, and if they are bent for certain characters it opens up a whole host of problems - could I add Zara Highway back (despite not being seen for the same amount of time Mica has) just because her father is a main character? No. Could I add Louie Beale as a returning character (despite it not being confirmed if he will return with Peter? No. Ridiculous. Connorguy99 (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree. Sometimes when they are added back, it slips under my radar and I don't notice. But I agree that there needs to be a large update of the recurring section, including updating the character sections that they link to. – DarkGlow (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see why there's an issue, if they are to return then they will simply be added back when it happens. I'm not comfortable with a character last seen in 2018 being on the current characters page. As for the pets, what makes Bronson and Lady Di so special that they can remain despite having not been seen in 6+ months while the likes of Dave the Cat and Rooney (who have clearly been forgotten over time) are rightfully removed. Connorguy99 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the animals should be treated the same as normal recurring characters – as in, remove them after 6 months. How exactly do we verify the last appearance of a dog? – DarkGlow (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I think uncredited "regular" recurring characters, i.e. pets and kids of present regular characters, should remain in the list regardless of when they last appeared. And yes Kim will return. — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  12:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that when this 6 month (originally 1 year) "rule" was invented, nobody expected any of these types of characters to disappear for so long and therefore I believe exceptions can be made as this is a brand new circumstance that has never happened before. The rule was basically made for characters like police officers, market inspectors, solicitors, etc, none of which really seem to get added anymore. — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  13:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fictional pets are not always seen on-screen but will appear when the story needs it. I have read articles in the past that reveal pets do not always appear because of the production costs they create, like fees for trainers and owners. So they only appear when they really have to.<b style="color:blue;font-family:Times New Roman">Rain</b> <b style="color:green">the 1</b> 07:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm also in agreement that pets should be included on the list. They are the type of characters who appear sporadically because as Raintheone mentions, they are expensive to hire. I'd also support Kim, Pearl and Mica being kept on the list. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  14:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is your proof that Kim will return? Nowhere has a return been confirmed. Just that she was "taking a break" (same expression that was used for Leticia Dean when she left in 2006). Her "return" for Christmas has been and gone, there's no evidence that she will appear again - if you have some, provide it. Especially with all the disruption Kim will not be seen for at least the next couples of months. Connorguy99 (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

(Copied from my user talk page as relevant to this discussion): ''You have no proof whatsoever that Kim is returning to her role, yet you continuously abuse the page to keep Pearl / Mica (one who hasn't been seen in over a year - and the other who is getting close to that herself). Ignore the talk page all you want, but I still wont let you abuse the page. Connorguy99 (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)''
 * People have agreed that pets and children of regular characters should remain on the list if their owner/parent is also listed, so if Kim is listed then Mica and Pearl can stay. That's not abusing the page. As for Kim, well, she did appear at Christmas so do we need to apply the now-suspended 6-month rule to her? I would have rather you pinged me on that talk page again instead of splitting the discussion like this. I shall copy this there. — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  11:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would have preferred you not ignore the discussion in the first place to push ahead with your own opinion. Anyway, that is the most nonsensical thing I have ever heard - the Carters are on the list, lets add all the Carter children back? Stuart is on the list, lets add Zara Highway. Nonsensical. Kim can remain, the children cannot. Connorguy99 (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Zara Highway is not a child character. The Carters' departed children are not child characters. But fine, Kim stays, the children don't. — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  15:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody said anything about child characters, you yourself said "children of regular characters should remain on the list if their parent is also listed". And if you wanted to stay with "child characters" - Raymond could be added under that rule, sure enough he has had an exit storyline and been gone for over a year but so has Pearl / Mica. Connorguy99 (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Year–present
On MOS:DATETOPRES, it states: "For ranges "to present", constructions such as 1982–present (with unspaced en dash), January 1, 2011 – present (spaced ndash), or January 2011 – present (spaced ndash) may be used, but other constructions may be more appropriate in prose. In tables and infoboxes where space is limited, pres. may be used (1982–pres.). Do not use incomplete-looking constructions such as 1982– and 1982–." Looking at this article and most other soap character lists, I feel they violate the guideline, which should be addressed. – DarkGlow (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A good point. I would imagine if it needs to comply with MOS:DATETOPRES, then yes. Also, just to let you know the ping did not work as you pinged and signed in two different edits. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> -  talk  18:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up! As for the layout, I personally like the layout on the Doctors list, but with duration included rather than their respective role since Doctors is a workplace soap. Let's hope this ping works; – DarkGlow (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty much WP:IAR about this, and won't be going out of my way to make any changes. - <b style="color: Purple; font-family: Arial;">JuneGloom07</b> Talk  19:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have never supported that layout. One editor has been changing the durations on Hollyoaks articles. I was hoping it would not become a bigger issue.. but you started this discussion.<b style="color:blue;font-family:Times New Roman">Rain</b> <b style="color:green">the 1</b> 20:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm also pretty much WP:IAR about this. It's not broken, why "fix" it? I also think "pres." looks much worse than "present". — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  18:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing characters
What is the consensus on removing:
 * Danny Hardcastle – is he even a regular? I always perceived him as recurring.
 * Michaela Turnbull – her storyline with Leo/Whitney has concluded.
 * DI Steve Thompson – his storyline with Keegan has concluded.
 * Frankie Lewis – her guest stint has been concluded.

Let me know what you all think. – DarkGlow (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is hard to determine whether guest stints have ended yet or not since the show is on a break, but some can be confirmed. Danny is definitely not a regular character and should not be on that list, but should be on recurring as he is a recurring character. I'd agree with removing Michaela and possibly Steve (he's popped up in a few stories, so unsure). I don't think Frankie's stint has concluded yet. She's only been in three episodes and it sounds like she'll appear in a couple more, so to air on the side of caution, I'd say keep her. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  20:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm under the impression that when the programme returns, Ben's operation is complete, so I can't see scope for Frankie returning, but I agree that she should be kept just in case. I believe Michaela is definitely, but I see the point about Steve. I forgot he was in previous storylines – boat crash, right? – DarkGlow (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just best to keep her until we know some concrete plans. Yes, Thompson was involved in the boat crash and Keanu's disappearance too. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  20:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2020
An extra source reference has been posted by mistake at the bottom of the page. Can somebody remove it? Marked 4. 80.5.198.109 (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Jags??
Pretty much safe to assume that Thursday 8th October was Jags last appearance right and we should just move him into past characters now Butler97 (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It’s not really been said when jags is leaving. It’s presumingly this month. WikiFlame50 (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

But only time shall tell WikiFlame50 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2020
Has Jags departed onscreen yet? If so he should be removed from the list. 80.5.198.109 (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✔️ – DarkGlow (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * He's still on the characters list. He has been removed from the character changes section yes but is still on the main list.80.5.198.109 (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ – DarkGlow (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks.80.5.198.109 (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2020 (2)
At the bottom of the references section, the source detaling Tina's departure has accidentally been posted twice with a number 7 next to it. Can someone please remove it? 80.5.198.109 (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done ◢ <i style="background-color:#F7E3F7; color:#960596"> Ganbaruby! </i>  (Say hi!) 22:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks.80.5.198.109 (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Page fix
I accidentally removed cast changes when adding Katy Lewis, Can someone fix this please? WikiFlame50 (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Kim Fox
It has now been over six months since Kim's (extremely minor) cameo appearance at Christmas, and close to an entire year since she left the regular role (she stopped appearing regularly in early June 2019 but had one small appearance mid-July). There is currently no plans for Kim to return alongside the others when the show resumes, and so she remains the odd one out on the list as a whole. I suggest that she is removed, there's no reason for her inclusion. Connorguy99 (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have completely disagree with you here. The rule, in my opinion, is pretty much on a "break" like the show itself. Tameka will not have been filming in the last few months because of the break (like Lacey Turner), but she has actually returned for the Secrets from the Square series, which to me suggests she'll be back soon. Especially since it looks to be current cast appearing on the interview series. Also, to add, you don't know/have any proof that there are no plans for Kim's return. In conclusion, I'd say we keep Kim on the list. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  16:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * it is you that has no proof that it is a break. it was initially reported that she would be taking a break and would return at Christmas, her minor return came and went - six months have now passed and there's still no news, and no mention of her still being on a break. however, we know that several stars have returned to filming and Tameka is not one of them. her appearance in a documentary has nothing to do with the main show? and as for the Lacey Turner comparison, she has repeatedly been stated to be on maternity leave and confirmed to be returning (having already returned to filming) and regardless has had a voice appearance in the last six months. Connorguy99 (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is hardly a regular circumstance here. The programme has been on a break, and the rule goes hand in hand with that. Reliable sources have stated since her departure that it is a break, and that she is set to return when she wants. No mention of a permanent departure. We can't just remove her from the list based on this, especially considering she's appearing in SFTS. I think WP:IAR applies here. – DarkGlow (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The last we heard Empson was taking on break with nothing about a permanent departure. A return date was confirmed, but not specified (the Christmas appearance was very clearly not a 'return', just an appearance). You have no WP:RS that Empson has not returned and more points in the direction that she'll be back (especially with the SFTS appearance, a show which is linked current cast members). Basically, the point I'm making is there isn't any reliable source that states she won't be back, so until we get one, we have to follow the news that Empson is on a break and will return. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  21:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * not really interested in this not being a regular circumstance - she left the show a year ago when everything was fine and dandy. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * likewise it was never OFFICIALLY confirmed that Tameka was A) on a break or B) returning. and i challenge you to find evidence where this was stated by an official source. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Here's the proof that i have:
 * When Tameka left several sources began reporting that she was taking a break;
 * However, Tameka later confirmed that she was "returning" for a Christmas storyline - this was in reference to her cameo. This was six months ago, and the current cast have returned to filming (including the likes of Lacey Turner / Jessie Wallace) but still no sign of Tameka.
 * The "taking a break" was clearly intended to mean the break until her Christmas cameo. Nothing more, and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise.
 * So... here we have a character who has departed (with an exit storyline) and hasn't been on the show for an entire year (despite a small cameo appearance) yet they are still "current"? Connorguy99 (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're ignoring the points we've made. The Christmas guest appearance was not her return, it was merely a guest appearance. She's featuring in SFTS, which is a clear indication that she is returning to filming at some point. Since EE has never taken a break before, this is uncharted territory. Therefore, we don't have to follow the six month rule. – DarkGlow (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Complete speculation, there is nothing from her appearance in that documentary that suggests a return. Pam St Clement took part in "Back to Ours" in 2015, which is exactly the same as "Secrets from the Square", was that suggesting a return for her? No, obviously not. And, did Kim return to the screen at Christmas? Yes, so it does count as a return. Especially as Tameka teased her Christmas return storyline.
 * Once again, I know these are unprecedented times but Kim had already long since left before the show went on a break. I wouldn't be doing this for any character who was affected by the pandemic (for example; Mo and Patrick, as they are unable to return just yet). Connorguy99 (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it has been confirmed on This Morning that Tameka is returning to filming. Case closed I think! – DarkGlow (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Should have done it quckier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.94.68 (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * And she appeared last week. — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  11:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2020
Mackenzie Atkins's duration dash is smaller than the others. It doesn't have the – format in it. 82.16.78.185 (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done: minor formatting request, thanks for pointing this out Pupsterlove02  talk • contribs 20:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2020
On the present characters list, Chelsea should come before Denise. Chelsea first appeared on the show on 5th May 2006 and Denise first appeared on 11th May 2006. Can somebody please correct it? 82.16.78.185 (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ – DarkGlow ( ✉ ) 13:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks.82.16.78.185 (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

New Character Tom Carter Portrayed by Aaron Folan Smith
A new character is joining it appears to be their first role please add this to the future characters box duration 2021- Aaron2198 (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

He is curently only known as the long lost son of zsa zsa carter tinas daughters child Aaron2198 (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright then, provide a source. – DarkGlow ( ✉ ) 22:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2021
Can Jed be added to the list? He has now appeared onscreen and the actor's name would be credited at the end of the programme. The character's surname may even be known as that may have appared on the credits too. 82.16.78.185 (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks.82.16.78.185 (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2021 (2)
I think the actor who played Jed is called James Backway according to Metro. 82.16.78.185 (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks.82.16.78.185 (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2021 (3)
Also it looks like Caleb, the character played by Ben Freeman, also made his first appearance tonight so can someone add him as well please? 82.16.78.185 (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks.82.16.78.185 (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Layout
Earlier today, put a lot of hard work into sourcing and adding images to this article. has removed the edits since they feel it "complicates the page", and demanded a discussion on the layout. So, I guess I'll start said discussion. I personally think the changes improved the list, as not only did the additions source durations (see WP:BURDEN), but they also provided images of the actors. I always encourage the use of images on Wikipedia articles too, since it helps to illustrate the page for readers. Feel free to have a say. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 16:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate the hard work, the edits were absolutely awful in my opinion and served no real purpose and only complicated the page. Connorguy99 (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the changes! I like the photos. Only thing is if the sources could be at the bottom of the page to keep it more clean? But that's only minor. Thank you DarkGlow and Soaper1234! :)DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * A completely random selection of cast pictures littering the side of the page, and lengthy source codes throughout which makes it difficult for even established users like myself to understand...? Connorguy99 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Connor you do not need to be so rude :( DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If you find source code difficult to understand, that's a you problem. It works just fine on the Casualty and Doctors character lists. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 17:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Why do people keep trying to villainize me? No, I did not "demand" a discussion. And no, I am not being rude.


 * It is not "my problem" that the entire page has been riddled with complex codes that the average user will not be able to decipher. And it does not work well on those pages, they are horrendous in my opinion. Connorguy99 (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody is trying to villainise you. Labelling someone's work as "horrendous" and "awful" is you villainising yourself. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 17:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Connor whether you agree or not you do not have to use "horrendous" and "awful" to shame someone about their hardwork? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I have said that I appreciate their hard work, but the fact that someone has put hard work into something doesn't make it good or valid. Connorguy99 (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Images aside, adding sources to the list means it complies with WP:V and I think there will be very few non-soap editors who would object to that. - <b style="color: Purple; font-family: Arial;">JuneGloom07</b> Talk  18:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear I have no objections to the duration sourcing in the final row-column, my complaints are with the image gallery and the complicated source coding that comes with it. The Doctors page does not have the images and works far better than the Casualty page. Connorguy99 (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Connorguy99: If your issue was only the images, why did you undo Soaper1234's entire edit? I support sourcing any list on Wikipedia. I agree that the use of images made it messy. Soaper1234 was trying to improve the article and this discussion is an overreaction.<b style="color:blue;font-family:Times New Roman">Rain</b> <b style="color:green">the 1</b> 21:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I was forced to undo the entire edit as the page's coding was complicated in such a way that I struggled to even remove Ian Beale's listing let alone separate the image gallery from the salvageable duration sourcing. The information still exists within the user's sandbox so I thought it best to undo the entire thing and, following a discussion, the whole material could be reposted or the user could amend it themselves to just include the duration sourcing. Connorguy99 (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Well this certainly blew up., if you had an issue with the images, you should have removed them and explained your reasoning. To revert the entire edit seems a bit much and you certainly were not "forced" to do anything. I would actually say (and it may just be me) that the coding of the images are less complex than the coding of the character list. Anyway, based on the other comments here, I would say the sourcing is supported, so I'll add that back. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  22:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As I have already said, I could not make head nor tail of the sourcing code that you had implemented for the image gallery - hence the removal of the entire work. I am experienced with these codes from Fandom sites, so if they confused me think about how newer users would feel - especially as these pages are forever updated by users with lesser experience who want to help keep them updated. Connorguy99 (talk)
 * I really don't want to sound bad here, but I wouldn't say that is an issue with the code, but rather the editor needs to learn how to use it, whether that is by reading style guides or other WP documents. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  23:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * An editor shouldn't have to learn how to use a code for an unnecessary selection of actor pictures littering the side of a page, what is the point? Connorguy99 (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Soap worked very hard on that and you removed perfect information. It was very detailed WikiFlame50 (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * What "information"? These were pictures of actors that had apparently been randomly selected. Connorguy99 (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You barely gave any reason to remove it. It was detailed and very constructive. You removed that and turned it unconstructive. It was such a nice addition. WikiFlame50 (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The image gallery complicated the entire sourcing code for a couple of randomly selected cast images. I did not believe that they were needed and thought that a discussion should have taken place before they were implemented. I hardly made the page unconstructive, I returned it to the state that it has functioned as for the past however many years. Connorguy99 (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Ian Beale departure
Characters that are on a break are NOT removed from the official EastEnders cast list - Tameka Empson remained on the list for a year and a half after her break, and June Brown remained for a year too. Adam Woodyatt's removal from the official cast list is indicative of more than a "break" - which I don't believe has been confirmed by any source related to the show. Connorguy99 (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Dude that is absolutely nonsense in what your saying. You stated they shouldn’t be removed when YOU are the one removing them! WikiFlame50 (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Here's my piece: all we have right now is sources stating that Ian is on a break. That's all we can go by, so I think we should keep Ian on the page until we know otherwise. Woodyatt may well have left or been axed, but until we have confirmation from WP:RS, I don't believe we should remove him. The cast list refers to Dayle Hudson's character as "Actor" so I'm not 100% sold that their list is well maintained. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Wise as always dark glow. WikiFlame50 (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If a character has only gone on a temporary break, it does not mean that they are not a character anymore, So therefore they stay unless if sources have said it’s permanent. WikiFlame50 (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that he shouldn't be removed. However, I wanted to say that I think characters that are on a break should have a note saying that the actor is on leave but will return? I think this would be really reassuring to people who, for example, cannot find a character onscreen for weeks that is on the list. So for example Ian Beale could have a footnote of "the character is currently on a break" and Stacey when she leaves could have "Turner is currently on maternity leave, but is expected to return later on in the year". This would be similar to how the Coronation Street character list has footnotes to explain that the role has been portrayed by multiple actors. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting point – it's noted on the standalone articles so perhaps it may be worth a note on here too? Cited, of course. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 17:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

As stated earlier the official EastEnders page ONLY removed characters who have left. Kim, Stacey, and Sonia were all kept on the page - among others - despite taking lengthy breaks. Even if the sources stating that Ian is on a break are factual they are stating that the break in 10 months long, which means that he will break our 6 month rule eventually and be removed anyway! Connorguy99 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The break is ten weeks long, not months. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 16:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If it were ten weeks he'd already be back filming...? Connorguy99 (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily... he left in December/January and its only the beginning of March. Also 10 weeks on screen ≠ 10 weeks of break off work, he could be gone for more than that. Also, even if it was 10 months – Mercedes McQueen was still in the Hollyoaks character list despite being offscreen for a year? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Once again, for those who continue to miss it, the OFFICIAL EastEnders page has removed him... there must be a reason. They kept June Brown on for a year after she quit, and they kept Tameka Empson on for a year and a half. There's a reason that he was removed, and this official page updated by people involved with the show is more reliable than any news outlet which has used both 10 weeks and 10 months. Connorguy99 (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and we don't know what that reason is. So how can we just remove him? Sounds like WP:CRYSTALBALL to me. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 17:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Because it is an official cast list that has no history of removing characters who haven't left?... Far more valid than whatever news outlet you've been reading. Connorguy99 (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The character's exit was staged as a departure, there has been no official source stating that it is only a break and he has been removed from the official cast list. So it is far more speculative to consider it as a break when the sources reporting it as a break cannot make their minds up as to whether it is 10 weeks, 10 months or whatever else. Connorguy99 (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a single source reported a 10 month break. You've made that up yourself. From Digital Spy: "Adam Woodyatt is taking an extended EastEnders break this year", link here. And numerous other sources have confirmed it is a 10-week break... – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 17:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Imagine showing yourself up by accusing me of lying. Connorguy99 (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hardly shown myself up – I checked that source out, and the 10-month claim comes from a report in WP:THESUN. All WP:RS confirm that this is a 10-week break. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 17:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You accused me of lying, I was not.


 * As I say, if it was 10 weeks he'd be back filming by now (his exit aired five weeks ago and the show is filming six weeks in advance). So... as he is not those claims are invalidated.


 * All that we have to go on is the fact that this character departed the show, and no official source has commented on the time frame. However, the official site has removed him from the current character list and the social media pages gave him a special video reel of all his best moments (which was also done for the departing Jake Wood, but not for Natalie Cassidy who was going on a break). Connorguy99 (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It is pure speculation to suggest that this is a temporary break.

This page's edit history showcases comments like, "[The Show] wouldn’t just let their longest-standing character leave without celebrating it or mentioning it in some way"... this is nothing but speculation. The User:Gardenshed95 made the statement that both "the actor and the show" had claimed that this was a temporary departure, however, they were unable to provide evidence to back up their statements and were forced to backtrack at a later date.

The reports that Adam Woodyatt was taking a temporary break came prior to the second and third national lockdowns, this means that those plans would likely be affected and are not going to be accurate. All we know so far is that a great deal was made of Ian's departure, rather than the character making a quick exit. Like Max Branning, who has been confirmed to have departed, Ian was given a special video on social media rounding up his time on the show - which a character like Sonia wasn't given when her actress went on a break earlier this year. And, like Max, Ian was removed from the official EastEnders cast list.

People can speculate all they want as to why Ian was removed from the cast list, but that is again... speculation. While mistakes like Peter Beale being named "Actor" appear on the cast list, never have I known them to remove a character who hasn't officially departed. In fact, they kept June Brown, Tameka Empson, and more on the list for an entire year or more following their departure.

So, with all the reports about Adam's exit invalidated by two national lockdowns (and the fact that if his departure was only 10 weeks as claimed he'd already be back filming) all we have to go on is the fact that the EastEnders social media platforms celebrated the character in a special video montage (similar to Max) and then removed him from their cast list. Connorguy99 (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How do we know he isn't back filming? – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it would be speculation to suggest he was? There is no evidence that he is back filming. Connorguy99 (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It would also he speculation to say he isn't back filming, since we have nothing to verify that. Unless you find a source saying it's not a 10-week break and is instead a permanent exit, I'm just not gonna agree with your crystal ball assumptions. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 21:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know which side of the argument this source supports but I'll link it anyway. https://www.digitalspy.com/soaps/eastenders/a34667943/eastenders-adam-woodyatt-looking-good-dead-play/ This states he will be in theatre from 1 April so it would be reasonable to assume he will not be back filming until after then. However, this also features a quote from the actor saying he is just on a break not a permanent departure. - Gardenshed95 (contribs • talk) 21:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Definitely strengthens my case, this interview was before the third national lockdown so the play that he is performing in will likely be pushed back even further. Regardless, even if it were to start in April that is still longer than 10 weeks considering he left mid-January. But yes, I'm apparently using a crystal ball. Hilarious! Connorguy99 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Strengthens my case" this is a discussion, not a court case... Did you happen to miss the part where he confirmed it's a temporary break, or did you ignore it? And yes, you just used a crystal ball by saying "in will likely be pushed back even further". We have no idea of anything, so why remove him when we don't remove actors said to be on a break? – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 22:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I missed the word "temporary" on the account that it didn't appear in the article or Adam's statement. I do not need a crystal ball to tell you that a theatre production will not be going ahead by the start of April, maybe turn on the news from time to time? Connorguy99 (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

No more deleting Ian off the list. You are in fact being the disruptive one. Listen to what Dark and the others have said. WikiFlame50 (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I will not be told what to do by someone who hasn't provided a single shred of evidence. Connorguy99 (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Listen buddy. Please calm down and enough of the rudeness. Ian has not left for good at all. Dark glow stated the obvious WikiFlame50 (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Rudeness is trying to patronise somebody, calling them "buddy" and telling them to "calm down". Rudeness is not pointing out that you have not posted any evidence whatsoever, that is simply a fact. Another fact is that WikiFlame50 is not more reliable than the official EastEnders website. Connorguy99 (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We are getting nowhere with this. It is clear consensus will not be reached. Can I request though ConnorGuy99 if you are insistent on removing Ian Beale could you also make this clear on his character page? The "past: regular" link still leads to this page and you haven't added him to the past characters page. You could also indicate when his 'last' appearance was as well so at least there is a thorough and consistent job done either side. I still disagree with your opinion that Ian has left and there is no specific evidence either side (your evidence you have suggested yourself is flawed due to the Dot/Dayle Hudson issue and the fact Max hasn't even been removed yet), so due to this vagueness it will be hard to come to a concrete decision either way. So could you please make all the necessary changes to show Ian is a past character rather than just some, or revert him all the way so there is a degree of consistency. Thank you. Gardenshed95 (contribs • talk) 23:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I will add those additions to Ian's page. I added them when he was first removed, but they have since been removed. Connorguy99 (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by this; "you have suggested yourself is flawed due to the Dot/Dayle Hudson issue and the fact Max hasn't even been removed yet". The only thing I acknowledged was the Dayle Hudson flaw, Dot and Max have been removed. Connorguy99 (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I may be looking at the wrong thing and if you can redirect me I would appreciate it. But on this link I found from the EastEnders website both June Brown and Jake Wood still appear on the cast list. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000sv0l Gardenshed95 (contribs • talk) 23:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The updated cast list is for the entry at the bottom of the "Next On" page. This cast list removed June Brown and Jake Wood. Connorguy99 (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with garden. No more of this charade WikiFlame50 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

He is right. Nothing will be concluded at all. Let’s make one thing clear though, Ian should not be removed. He is only on break temporarily. Not to mention people have given evidence and statement of why. But anything to end this shamble will do grand WikiFlame50 (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You do not have more authority than the official EastEnders site, which does not count Ian Beale as a current character. Connorguy99 (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Here are some links for confirmation that he is still here: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0088512/fullcredits https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/2fSSNHD2Mv2jlbKZtpF9Yrt/past-characters

As you see Ian is not gone WikiFlame50 (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This article, written on 1 February 2021, confirms that Woodyatt will return following the wrap of his theatre run. It even mentions that COVID will have a knock-on effect to his initial 10 weeks. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 00:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * None of those are valid links... IMDb is a site like this one that anybody can edit. And that EastEnders page is archived and hasn't been updated since 2017! Connorguy99 (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * RadioTimes is not more valid than the official EastEnders team. Connorguy99 (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2021
Martin Fowler's duration has been incorrectly altered to match Sharon Watts'. Can someone change it back? It is not when he was on the show. He was born onscreen on 30th July 1985 and left in February 2007 before returning played by a different actor in December 2014. 82.16.78.185 (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks like someone has done that for you. Volteer1 (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead
Following the addition of trivia in the lead, I thought I would open a discussion about it here. Firstly, WP:TRIVIA advises against writing out information like this and promotes the information being presented in an organised fashion (i.e. the tables). Secondly, the information was unsourced. I would be all for a good lead for the article as the current lead is poor, but it should contain information about EastEnders as well as referenced material about casting and characters. A good example of this can be found at List of Casualty characters and List of Holby City characters. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  08:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I really like the look of the Casualty and Holby City lists and a nice interesting lead with sources here would be welcomed by me. — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  11:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, an expanded lead would be great! I think it should only include present characters, since unlike the Casualty and Holby City lists, we have a former character list – so perhaps we could have an expanded lead on the former character list about the iconic longstanding former characters? – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 11:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes the same for the former characters list too :-) — 🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  12:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that the lead that I put was good, as it included the longest running characters, as well as former past long running characters. I tried to source it, but it got removed. Additionally, the durations were left unsourced for years, so I don't understand why it got removed... I honestly do not think that what I put is trivia, because it was simply stating who the longest running characters. In the Casualty List, whilst I think it is a great lead, I think that it is a bit random as it includes info about some characters but not others - so I do not understand why mine got removed and that is okay? Also, the USA soap operas have similar leads and I think that it really suits them. I am just very upset tbh because I worked hard on that and was really proud of it and I got told off for it... :( DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/soaps/who-are-the-longest-serving-actors-in-soap/ - Here is a good source perhaps? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I got very upset. I am just going through a hard time atm DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear that an expanded lead would be supported. The information you included was not sourced at all and is already included in the first few lines anyway. If the article was to have a lead, I would suggest one that does not just mention who has appeared in the show the longest. In response to the randomness of the Casualty list, I would disagree. In the second paragraph, it explains how the cast works (ensemble, regularly changes), actors appearing in multiple roles, and characters crossing over to other shows. Looking at one US example (List of The Bold and the Beautiful cast members), it is very short and just states the only two original characters left. I would not say you were "told off" for your edit. Instead, I reverted an unsourced edit and opened a discussion about what to do moving forward. <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> -  talk  16:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2021
The source for new character Estelle should be moved slightly to the right so it is aligned with the others. 82.16.78.185 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ – DarkGlow • 22:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks.82.16.78.185 (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2021
The source for new character Estelle should be moved slightly to the right so it is aligned with the others. 82.16.78.185 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ – DarkGlow • 22:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks.82.16.78.185 (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Table widths
There has been some discourse on the table widths lately, so I wanted to open a discussion to get consensus on it so that we have something to use rather than subjective opinions. Speaking as both a mobile and laptop user, the original table widths were fine for me on both devices. The widths we currently have are fine on mobile, but majorly unbalanced on desktop (the duration column is huge). Thoughts? – DarkGlow • 08:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For me on desktop, character and actors column width 210px, duration width 270px and refs width 50 looks good, while character 150, actors 110, duration 420 and ref 50 looks bad (purely aesthetics, it still technically works). I'm a desktop user. says the latter works on mobile while the former does not. However, I do think character and actor should be the same width and it should be wide enough for all names to be on a single line at least on desktop. Checking the mobile app, everything wraps and all columns appear the same in both regular and recurring sections (currently have different widths). Using Chrome on my mobile also shows both sections to be exactly the same. So personally I'm in agreement with, but , you have other experiences? —  🌼📽️Anemone  Projectors💬  14:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry for the lateness. On the mobile version, the tables look like this: 1985– 1995, 2001– 2006, 2012– Which imo looks not only really ugly and confusing, but if I was new to this page I would be really confused. Especially with those such as Ben Mitchell, who has multiple actors, it could look the durations are linking to the individual actor. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that the widths being different lengths really is not an issue – many tables have this and they are still perfectly readable and understandable. However, if we changed the widths to before, they would really confusing and ugly DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Another solution could be to put the references next to the actors or cast members instead, so that the old widths could be used DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

If I may add my own thoughts on the discussion. I decided to check how the original width looks on my mobile, and it looked fine. While it's true that the duration column only allows for one year per row, I don't think it comes across as confusing, especially since they don't line up perfectly against actor names anyway. As DarkGlow said, on desktop, the current layout makes the duration column look far too wide and makes the entire table look unbalanced as a result.TheRowdyruffBoys (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

But I really don't think that the table being unbalanced is an issue. The main issue is that it can come across as confusing DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * For my mobile, the original table width on duration on Rainie Cross reads:


 * 2007–2008,
 * 2010–2011,
 * 2014–2015,
 * 2018–


 * To me, that's a clean entry. I assume most people's mobiles display it in a similar format since there has not been an issue raised with the table widths prior to this discussion. The original widths are the clearcut winner for me atm. – DarkGlow • 00:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the widths need changing. If anything, maybe change them to percentages rather than numbers? <b style="color: #D5670C;">Soaper1234</b> - talk  18:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the mobile version and I do not think it is too confusing. I agree that on the desktop version, the end column of the table is too stretched due to Rainie's duration.<b style="color:blue;font-family:Times New Roman">Rain</b> <b style="color:green">the 1</b> 20:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I really don't see the issue with the widths being too long? People are not going to think "oh the widths are too long I'm not going on this page anymore", whereas those who are unfamiliar with year ranges may be very confused. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I tried out the percentages idea and I think that works out well? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * On desktop, the percentages have made the stretching even worse than before. – DarkGlow • 21:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Table widths solutions
I finally found a solution for the table widths - now they fit perfectly on mobile version without compromising the computer version. I just removed the specific widths and it sorted itself out. Yay! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)