Talk:Phil Mitchell

Steve McFadden's sons
I've taken out the reference to his real-life kids because it doesn't belong in here. Will check it's in the article about the actor. raining girl (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wife: Kate Mitchell
Are they still married? Trampik e y (talk to me)(contribs) 13:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, probably. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Surley Phil isn't still married to Kate if he just got engaged to Stella. He must have divorced her and we just weren't told. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparhelda (talk • contribs) 19:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Not necessarily, you can be separated and engaged at the same time. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

But they got as far as the wedding day. If he'd been about to commit bigamy we'd have known. I imagine it was just too much detail and we are to assume the divorce went through off-screen while Phil was away. raining girl (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes you're right, but this is a very old discussion! anemone  I  projectors  16:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * True - pre-wedding day though. :)  raining girl (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

yes very 90.220.158.189 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Article
This article needs to be in chronological order, and I'm not a fan of the "Women" section... the two major sections need to be merged, then split into smaller sections, and more information needs to be added pre-Who Shot Phil? Does anyone have any suggestions? I know Gungadin's working on an out of universe section for him, so maybe we can do a big overhaul of the article when she's finished... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a suggestion. Just do it. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * lol, I came on to this talk page to ask whether you guys were happy with the layout for this page or not, but I see you've already had this discussion :) I agree by the way, the article misses out on a lot of Phil's early storylines. I'll have a go at re-ordering and padding it out after i've done the out of universe stuff if you like.Gungadin 01:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've started rewriting it, adding the stuff from your sandbox, in my sandbox. Feel free to edit it there! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with editing pages in the userspace is that the page history is lost. It's not a problem if only one person edits it, but when two more people edit a page in the userspace, when it's moved to the mainspace, the edits of the other people are missing from the history. That's why I try not to edit your sandboxes. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold
I'm reviewing this article, there are a couple of things which need to be done in order to get it qualified for GA status. The article is not very well-organized, for example:


 * The lead section is poorly structured and too short for the size of this article (why divide it into 4 one-sentence paragraphs?) Please see WP:LEAD. -(started - may need more Gungadin 15:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC))
 * I agree with Gungadin. The lead is not OK at all. It doesn't summarize the main content of the article. Moreover, the lead section should put more focus on Phil Mitchell, I mean the character itself. I think you should remove trivia or not important piece of information like "One of the soap's biggest storylines was the April 2001 whodunnit, dubbed "Who Shot Phil?", when the character was gunned down outside his home - by, as it turned out, ex-girlfriend Lisa Shaw." This should go to the article, not the lead.  A  W ' 17:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, you need a citation for Producer Corinne Hollingworth's comment.  A  W  17:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

*The sentence 'Below is an outline of Phil Mitchell's storylines during his years in EastEnders.' needs to be removed. You don't need to introduce in the previous section what will be in the next section → not logical.


 * There is a one-line section ("In popular culture"), it should either be expanded a little or deleted. The image Philmitchell2dtv.JPG doesn't stay in the right place as it should because this section is too short, please consider using codes like.

Paperwork (but also important):

*All fair use images must have detailed fair use rationale, many images on this page currently don't.

PeaceNT 12:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The reference list is too long, having two columns will give better layout → consider using  or.


 * You beat me to this article; I was gonna fail it unconditionally. Plot summaries way, way, way, way, way too long, see WP:FICT. Writing needs serious (non-trivial) copy-editing. I changed a score of incorrectly spelled words, but that still leaves serious problems with unencyclopedic language ("scarpered" etc.). I will WP:GA/R this article immediately if it is passed. Sorry! Obviously a lot of work has been put into it, but a lot more needs to be done. --Ling.Nut 18:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies I didn't bring out the WP:FICT matter earlier. Ling.Nut is right, it's better for this page to have a clear and concise plot summary rather than an exhaustive treatment of the subject. The article needs to use some trimming. Please consider making it as easy as possible for the readers to comprehend the overall information. My two cents PeaceNT 12:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What is "making it as easy as possible for the readers to comprehend the overall information" supposed to mean? From where I am, the information (which is the most important in the article - the storylines of the character) is very comprehensible! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. I mean that the article is rather long, which may bore the readers and make the material difficult for them to digest. Is there anyway you could "trim down" the text so as to make the article provide the essential and concise information? PeaceNT 15:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I apologize for putting User:PeaceNT in a corner. This article has a few very significant problems. These problems are not minor: Those are the major problems that would lead to a quick-fail in my opinion. --Ling.Nut 17:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall length. The article clocks in at 57Kb, which is remarkably long for a television character. The principla culprit is the storylines. The storylines should not be the most important part of the article. One or two brief storylines are often included in articles, to provide insight into a character. The character is the point of the article, not the storylines. This article seems to be a compendium of nearly every storyline Phil has even been in. Strongly suggest cut cut cut. Focus on perhaps two storylines that provide key insights &mdash; perhaps "Who Shot Phil" and Sharongate". As for all the others - delete in their entirety, leaving behind a summary paragraph which briefly' describes key or characteristic scrapes that Phil has been in, without providing excessive details.
 * 2) Serious problem with in-universe text. Strongly suggest reading Manual of Style (writing about fiction).
 * 3) Serious problem with non-encylopedic tone/language.. poached, scarpered, etc.


 * We were contemplating splitting the storylines section into a separate article and just providing a summary and link to the article in this page. Would that be acceptable? I know you think that we have put a lot of detail into the storylines section, but in actual fact there is very little when you consider he's been on the programme for over 17 years, in a 4 episodes a week television show :) I would hardly describe the use of words such as poach and scarper as a "serious problem", but easily fixed nonetheless.Gungadin 17:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the article would be pointless without the storylines listed here. It's what a show, and ultimately a character relies on; so they should stay. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 17:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, Ling Nut, have you ever watched an episode of EastEnders? The article simply cannot be cut down to just Sharongate and Who Shot Phil? - it's a ridiculous suggestion! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should remove any of the storylines or move them to a separate article, but there must be some way to cut the article down and use less detail. If I get time I'll actually read through it and see if I can make any improvements. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I think you guys might be being too strict as another article with a similarly long storylines section was passed as GA but it was commented that for FA we should reduce the storylines section. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent).
 * This is about tight writing (and encyclopedic writing). It is of course OK to put in a couple storylines. The point of the storylines is not to summarize 17 years of the show, but to summarize Phil.
 * Hmm. I've seen storylines in separate articles, but the writing guidelines (see links above) explicitly frowns on that practice. Better to simply trim the existing text mercilessly.
 * It's difficult for me to criticize the WP:LEDE, given that the article itself needs much work. But when the body is finished, you should double-check to be sure that the lede is a summary of the entire article.
 * Sorry to be the bad guy! It's very obvious that a huge amount of dedicated work has been poured into this article. But there is a lot of extra stuff that needs to be trimmed here. Keep this in mind: This is not about EastEnders, it's about Phil. It's not an autobiography of Phil (as a fictional character); it's a brief summary. --Ling.Nut 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Problem is - the storylines will continue to grow and grow regardless of any cuttings we make today. If we cut out the early info we will just get an over emphasis on recent storylines from other editors (as we have with some of the other articles).At least if the storylines section had its own page there would be room for expansion. Many other fictional character pages dont have problems with an over emphasis on storylines, because they are from films or serials with far fewer episodes, and each episode has its own article describing the storylines anyway (Like Lost for instance). We could never do that with a 4 episode a week soap.Gungadin 20:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but that's stupid. Utter crap. Anyone wanting to read this article will want to know about Phil's life, what has happened to him in his 17 years in EastEnders, readers won't read it to find out about how the character was created, or any of the other out of universe stuff Gungadin has felt obliged to add to the article to make it up to the standard of overly pedantic people like you. Storylines are the single largest part of a fictional character, and should not be shirked away like you are suggesting, and the characters make EastEnders - without characters and storylines there would be no show at all! And if it means abandoning the GA nomination, so be it, because whatever you say, this is a great article, and yes, it has had a huge amount of dedicated work put into it - it's a shame it can't be appreciated really. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't feel that way. We do appreciate all the effort that has been put into this article, the suggestions were made solely to help Phil develop to a better quality. I understand that you may not agree with the guidelines that Ling.Nut has cited, but we are part of an encyclopedia, and we need to rise to the standards set by the encyclopedia. I know the GA systems aren't your personal favourites, Tramplikey, but it is what Wikipedia strives for and what we must strive for too.
 * I generally look to an encyclopedia for a concise introduction. It isn't necessary for articles to go into details. If the readers want an academic analysis or more plot information, they should probably buy some books that analyse the show. In regard to your comment below, a brief summary would be an overview of who the character is and how he affects the plot. The storyline of course plays a part in representing the character, but not every event in the plot helps form who Phil is. Please reconsider cutting out details which don't have major impact on the character. Leaving out everything that has yet to prove important is not a big deal, after all, if something turns out to be significant later in the show, it can surely be readded in the future. PeaceNT 11:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, as far as I know, articles on Wikipedia aren't meant to be "breif summaries" - and how breif is "breif"? "George W. Bush is the president of the USA." is breif - but that's not an acceptable article - surely articles are supposed to supply as much information on the subject as possible. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Trampikey, I'm sorry that your experience as a Wikipedian has led you to conclude that guidelines such as WP:FICT, WP:LEDE and Manual of Style (writing about fiction) are "utter crap." As with all such Wikipedia guidelines, however, they reflect the consensus of a very large number of experienced and hard-working editors. It seems reasonable to conclude that they contain some nuggets of wisdom.
 * I might suggest that you re-read (or read) them.
 * For example, from WP:FICT: "Plot summaries should be kept reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply summarize them. It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own. "
 * Thanks! -- Ling.Nut
 * Oops I forgot to point out WP:LENGTH as well. Ling.Nut 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And myself, AnemoneProjectors and Gungadin, all veteran members of WikiProject EastEnders, aren't experienced and hard-working editors?! And as Gungadin said above, the storyline will continue to grow, and all of it is appropriate to the character's history. It's not getting removed or cut down, so I guess the GA nomination should be forgotten. I find you dismissive and quite patronising, also. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You may believe you are arguing with me, but that is simply not the case. You are arguing with WP:MOS, WP:LENGTH, WP:LEDE, WP:FICT, and Manual of Style (writing about fiction), among others. You stand against them, not against me.
 * If you believe, however, that you are arguing only with me instead of with Wikipedia guidelines, then you can argue your case with many other editors at WP:GA/R.
 * I can tell that this article is important to you. Are you perhaps a little too close to it to see objectively?
 * Moreover, as you are obviously keenly (and somewhat impolitely) dismissive of the "utter crap" that constitutes my input, I will cease offering it. I wish you the very best of luck with your efforts!
 * --Ling.Nut 22:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure no one minds you pointing out errors with the article Ling.Nut. It is possibly the way you have done it that has irritated. Constantly emphasising the word 'Serious problems' is a little patronising to those who have spent hours writing the page (and that is subjective anyway). Maybe if you took a more tactful approach this wouldnt happen. For instance, User:PeaceNT was managing to highlight the problems, but still be polite, constructive and tactful before you barged in (twice).23:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again. It's not a question of "barging in," since this is a public forum, and the GA process is open as well.
 * Let's summarize: You see me as being rude and full of crap; I see one or more editors on this page as being unable to process a small spoonful of criticism in an adult/mature manner. Perhaps as time goes on, one or the other of us will be mature enough to realize that he/she was wrong. Until that day (which may come months or even years in the future), it's best if we simply leave it there. As I said, I wish you the very best of luck with your endeavors! I'm not going to reply again. --Ling.Nut 11:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you realise that it is a question of barging in, hence this conversation User talk:PeaceNT. Like I said no one minds criticism here, we would just appreciate some tact too. I wish you luck with your endeavors too. Gungadin 12:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

GA failed
This article's on hold expired and legitimate concerns went unadressed for all but three days of the hold. IvoShandor 10:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Automated peer review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Elonka 18:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * arguably
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): couldn't, wasn't, didn't, couldn't, didn't, wasn't, wasn't, would've, wasn't, couldn't, couldn't, wasn't, didn't, didn't.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Fair use rationale for Image:Mitchell bros scenr1.JPG
Image:Mitchell bros scenr1.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 11:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 22:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

✅ anemone  |  projectors  23:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Landlord of the Queen Vic
Is this really correct? As far as I know Peggy is the Landlady even though Phil is the owner, or at least part owner. A similiar situation is in Coronation Street as Steve owns the Rovers but Liz is the landlady as Steve can't be the licensee due to having a criminal record, the same will apply to Phil. Douglasnicol (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, I'm sure this is true. Remember way back when Grant and Phil jointly owned the Vic, at that time Grant married Sharon, and she was the landlady as neither of them could due to criminal records, therefore the present Landlord/Landlady should be Peggy. Douglasnicol (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Latest storyline
Wiki does not seem to be up-to-minute on Phil. What's the latest please? In particular who is the woman Phil seems to be on the brink of having an affair with as I recognise the actress but can't place her name. Thanks  SmokeyTheCat    •TALK•  15:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Drug addiction
It has been revealed that Phil will become addicted to crack cocaine. Should we change the alcoholism section to maybe "Addictions" or write about it separately? Anemone Projectors  20:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. That's hilarious. 2. The development section seems to run chronologically, so adding it to the alcoholism subsection might confuse things a bit, but could both addictions be mentioned instead as a facet of his personality/characterisation? Frickative  21:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd rather not do that, cos this is a specific storyline that's been researched and everything. When I saw the headling "Drug addiction plot for 'Enders character" I didn't expect Phil at all! I was quite disappointed really. But I guess it might coincide with his temporary leave for panto..... Anemone  Projectors  21:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, in which case I'd probably just make it a separate subsection of development. I can't imagine being able to take the storyline seriously at all, but we'll see! Frickative  21:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's going to be related to the current storyline maybe we need to include all the current stuff as well, somehow, and put it all in one place? Dunno. Anemone  Projectors  22:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

With the reports that McFadden decided to lose weight for the storyline, I have added a new section to the article under development, and included information on Lisa's return and Ben's recasting, as it is probably all related. Anemone Projectors  12:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I should mention his leave for pantomime but I reckon it must be related. It's only six weeks, but here is the story. Anemone  Projectors  13:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Reception section
Having this split into good and bad reception makes it impossible to put all reception for the drugs storyline in one place, and I don't think it should be split up. What do others think? Stuart Heritage from The Guardian has called it an "iconic TV moment". Anemone  Projectors  19:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (Unless we move it all into the drug addiction section of development...? There's this as well.) Anemone  Projectors  19:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Phil's Occupation Date(s)
Hi, I am appealing to anyone who know's the occupation dates of Phil Mitchell, as it stands at present his occ dates are as follows, * Barman (c. 1990s–2000s, 2005–10) *Mechanic (c. 1990s–2010) *Businessman (c. 1990s–2009) *Pub landlord (c. 1990s), well if somebody knows precisely when he was in these occupation's please feel free to correct them. --Dweeby123 (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Birth Date.
This month in September 2010 Phil said he was 50 years old but he was born in January 1961 according to scripts over the years. The 1961 date is the correct date given for the character. I notice his date of birth has been amended to 19 January 1960. But when he said he was 50 he means he is nearly 50. He is still 49 and will be 50 in January 2011. 5 months time. I have amended his DOB back to 19 January 1961.

(Benny1982 (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC))


 * Thanks, I normally spot these things being changed but I must have missed this one. You're right too, people do say they're a certain age when they mean they will be that age. Anemone  Projectors  19:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Heart attack/engagement
This will need to be incorporated into development. and  Anemone  Projectors  17:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Can We Agree to Disagree on (Pub landlord) occupation??
Phil is the owner and licensee of the pub not Alfie and Kat, Yes so you may say on Alfie & Kat's EE profile pages it says Landlord and Landlady (respecitvely), Well infact it say's Alfie is the Landlord and Kat is a Barmaid, it doesn't say anywhere on her profile page that she is a landlady &mdash; But anyway that's not my point my point is on Phil's profile, the occupation field is:


 * Barman (1990–2003, 2005–10)
 * Mechanic (since 1991)
 * Pub landlord (it currently reads: "1991", but it should acctually say: 1991, since 2010)
 * Businessman (since 1991)

So please can we agree to disagree?? --87.254.83.79 (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So you want it to say that Phil is the landlord, and not just the owner? Alfie and Kat are licensees as their names are over the door. – Anemone Projectors – 16:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ALFIE is the LANDLORD, KAT is the LANDLADY and PHIL is the OWNER--MayhemMario (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to shout :-) – Anemone Projectors – 20:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to douche it up. There's no shouting in text.  Get over yourself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.39 (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not join a discussion, just to make personal attacks. It may be worth while you reading up on some of the policies we have on Wikipedia. Rain the 1  BAM 13:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

=D --MayhemMario (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @MayhemMario, Chill your beans yessir!!!, (BTW if you don't know what "Yessir" means See here) &mdash;80.65.242.116 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You keep shouting in your edit summaries too. Oh Btw Mrs IP, we sure can. We disagree so you can agree with that. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 02:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Raintheone, Shut up &mdash;80.65.242.116 (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Twitter just might be merging with Wikipedia. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 21:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand what 87.254.83.79 wants to agree to disagree about. – Anemone Projectors – 22:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 80.65.242.116 do not tell other editors to shut up. Please try to keep things civil. - JuneGloom    Talk  23:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I like bacon....00:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @AnemoneProjectors, the point I am getting at is Phil is the landlord/owner The Vic right? Well therefore he should have on his occupation field that he is a landlord i.e. on his occ field it would say – Pub landlord (1991, since 2010) &mdash; It currently reads Pub landlord (1991), So the point I am getting at is, I apoligise for going on by the way it should say "since 2010" in the Pub landlord occupation thing if you get what I mean!...... And as for you Raintheone, that's cheeky Wikipedia is nothing like Twitter!! –217.28.7.133 (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

ok but how can we "agree to disagree"? We can just agree, or we can disagree. Agreeing to disagree won't give anyone the result they want. If Phil is the landlord, what are Kat and Alfie? This affects four articles, not just this one. So you haven't heard of "twittipedia" then? ;-) – Anemone Projectors – 11:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Anemone, Kat & Alfie are just just Phil's tennants and are not Landlord & Landlady, I know this is really, really confusing!! but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, and in responce to your 2nd reply No I've never ever heard of twitter-pedia lol --178.16.0.63 (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Their names are above the door though. – Anemone Projectors – 14:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All the soaps have always been sketchy on whether they own the place or are simply licensed tenants. I guess it's just easy for them to say, even if wholly untrue, that the person in charge is landlord/landlady. In Corrie the Rovers was owned by Newton and Ridley until the mid-eighties when Bet took over, but heaven help anyone who referred to Annie Walker as a 'barmaid'. I think it should probably say pub owner here. It makes it clear he is the landlord as he owns the place, but doesn't imply he has much to do with it, which he doesn't. Either title, owner or landlord, is correct though. Ooh, Fruity   @  Ooh, Chatty  14:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh god do you know @User:Ooh, Fruity, I'm so glad you know what I'm talking about as I don't honestly think AP, or anyone else did alas there's somebody out there who understands me lool --178.16.0.63 (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, the "pub owner" thing has been absorbed into "businessman". I don't mind putting Phil as the landlord if it's correct but what are Kalfie? – Anemone Projectors – 15:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've just seen that :) I'd leave them as landlords as well. It's sourced. It's not factually correct, but that's the beeb's issue. The finer details can always be put in prose. Ooh, Fruity   @  Ooh, Chatty  16:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What about in The Queen Victoria? – Anemone Projectors – 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine as it is in my opinion. Ooh, Fruity   @  Ooh, Chatty  16:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ok that's cool – Anemone Projectors – 17:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Daft question but...
So it say's in the occupation field on his profile "Pub landlord" but was he actually a landlord (i.e. was his name above the door??) because if it wasn't then technically that does not make him the licensee – secondly if his name was above the door then why as I know the licensing law of the United Kingdom states that no person with a criminal record (which Phil has) can have be a licensee I thought I'd better ask before I remove it from the infobox. --EndersFan2012 (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He's the landlord. As for the licensing law, I thought that too but you know what EastEnders research is like sometimes, or maybe we're meant to assume he found some way around that.  Either way he's the landlord.--5 albert square (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for that :) --EndersFan2012 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just my opinion though, not everybody will agree. I'm sure Peggy gave the pub to him though when she left and I don't remember him giving it up.  Maybe he didn't tell them she'd left lol!--5 albert square (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Should Lexi be listed as Phil's foster child in the infobox?
WITHOUT edit warring! The article did not state that Phil is her adoptive father, just her foster father. A user (86.169.235.148, who I blocked for edit warring, making personal attacks and going against consensus) has made the argument that "She is his ward temporarily but it is internal within the family." Therefore, should we list her? I've commented her out for now. I don't think I need to hear from that user as they have already made their opinion clear. – Anemone Projectors – 19:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont think so. Firstly, she is already listed as his granddaughter. Secondly he has not legally adopted her, adoption is permanant, him being her legal guardian is a temporary measure which according to the judge at Lola's hearing will continue to be reviewed. Lola hasn't permanently lost custody of her, and Phil could just as easily lose his status of guardian if social services decide in the future that its not in Lexis best interests. Bleaney (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK cool, though I'm not saying he adopted her but is her foster parent. Billy didn't adopt Jay but is listed as his foster father. Different circumstances? – Anemone Projectors – 20:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The difference is temporary and permanent. Billy became Jay's permanent legal guardian after his dad died, and did not have to attend reviews with Social Services. Phil does, its a temporary position that could become permanent, but is not yet. Bleaney (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I understand :-) – Anemone Projectors – 20:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Harry and Charlie Mitchell
Someone has added these names to the list of Phil's family as his cousins, but I've never heard of them. Are they unseen characters? If so, do they have any significance? I'm just wondering if they're the invention of a bored Wikipedia user! Smurfmeister (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They are unseen cousins who don't need to be mentioned in the infobox. – Anemone Projectors – 08:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Episode number for first appearance
Where is this information sourced from? The 1,000th episode aired in April 1994... years after Phil's first appearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.198.58 (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The number was added by, maybe they'll see this and answer, but unlikely... for now I'll remove the information. Thanks. – Anemone Projectors – 15:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks AP. The 1000th episode was marked with Nigel and Debbie Bates' wedding (this is referred to on both of their pages) and the show was only twice-weekly until that year. There's no way 1000 eps could've aired in five years. Some of the others are obviously wrong too like Carol appearing in ep 1423. It'll be interesting to see whether the IP responsible gets back to us with a source.

Actually I think Carol's is the only one way out now. Unless he has edited some of the past characters. He seemed to stop at Carol and the 1985 characters look correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.198.58 (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Phil Mitchell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061229113716/http://www.redpepper.org.uk/cularch/xeastend.html to http://www.redpepper.org.uk/cularch/xeastend.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070712152850/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/eastenders/eastenders/episodes/classic_content/classic19991014.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders/eastenders/episodes/classic_content/classic19991014.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100722123515/http://www.rte.ie:80/ten/2010/0721/eastenders.html to http://www.rte.ie/ten/2010/0721/eastenders.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070222121637/http://www.thecustard.tv:80/linksandlists/tvpolls.html to http://www.thecustard.tv/linksandlists/tvpolls.html#soap
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090126061234/http://www.020magazine.com:80/webs/02005/showArticle.cfm?id=441 to http://www.020magazine.com/webs/02005/showArticle.cfm?id=441

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Phil and Sharon are still married
Phil has filed for divorce, Sharon has responded to his petition and agreed to the divorce. This does not make them divorced. Next they have to apply for a decree nisi, which will be approved or rejected by a court. Assuming it is approved, 6 weeks later Phil can apply for a decree absolute, or if he doesn't do this, Sharon can apply for one after another 3 months. Once they get a decree absolute, then and only then will they be divorced. However, isn't this just another reason to just removed in-universe dates from infoboxes???!!! Please? Anemone Projectors  13:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As of yesterday's episode, Sharon and Phil are still married. From what Sharon said, it's clear they received a decree nisi, so now Phil has to wait 6 weeks to apply for a decree absolute - or Sharon has to wait 3 months on top of that 6 weeks, as I said above. They then have to wait for the decree absolute to arrive. But they can still change their minds and end up not divorced. &lt;anemone&gt;  &gt;projectors&lt;  08:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In yesterday's episode, Sharon and Phil received letters stating that Phil can contact his solicitor to finalise the divorce. Sharon then told Shirley she and Phil are back together. So still married and it's looking more and more likely that they will remain married. And I reckon this storyline was done with Wikipedia in mind! anemone  projectors  17:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Phil Mitchell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110719133324/http://archives.walford.net/2040.htm to http://archives.walford.net/2040.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Phil Mitchell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061229113716/http://www.redpepper.org.uk/cularch/xeastend.html to http://www.redpepper.org.uk/cularch/xeastend.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Wives surnames
I suppose this extends beyond just Phil, but why are we using their marriage names in the infobox? Aren't we kind of contradicting ourselves a bit because when a character marries, such as Stacey Slater and Martin Fowler, we don't change Stacey's page to Stacey Fowler as we say Stacey Slater is the common name, so shouldn't this be applied in the infobox? And on the List of EastEnders characters page, we don't change the characters surname when it's changed, again, we go by the common name. Grangehilllover (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Returning?
When is Phil coming back. Is he coming back. Is there any reliable sources that say either. Aacfsftw (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Phil Mitchell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230211134/http://www-fms.stir.ac.uk/research/mvv/mvv_ch2.html to http://www-fms.stir.ac.uk/research/mvv/mvv_ch2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090731153212/http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C27574%2C25846677-23109%2C00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C27574%2C25846677-23109%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 return
Should John Yorke be added as an introducer for 2017 just because he's been gone so long and the media are treating it like a big Return Aacfsftw (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's only been a break, like when Jake Wood had a year off. And the show is still Sean O'Connor's work. Grangehilllover (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Steve McFadden never left the cast anyway, and Sean O'Connor will still be EP of the episode. —  a nemone   p ro j ec t ors  11:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The Mitchell car crash section
There's a template box that states this section needs expanding, but it looks to me that it doesn't. Could I possibly remove this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILove70s (talk • contribs) 11:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright then, if you wish for us to have a discussion on THIS talk page; then I am feel comfortable doing that. So anyways, I do still wish to converse with you on the EastEnders character Phil Mitchell?

Talk

Description of the character's most significant impacts and storylines throughout his duration
Hello there. I wish to speak with you JuneGloom07 Talk  about the fictional character Phil Mitchell from the BBC British soap opera drama series EastEnders, if you don't mind of course? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicky Haugh (talk • contribs)
 * I'd just to like to add that your edits suggest you are trying to bulk up the lead of the article. The lead should only be a brief summary of the article (sans storylines) itself so there is plenty of reason why "the character's most significant impacts and storylines" would not be included (in the lead). Soaper1234 - talk  12:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

So would that include this then, Soaper1234; _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ "During his time on the show, Phil's most prominent aspects include his battles with alcoholism and addiction; sparking numerous feuds; partaking in various criminal activities; having occasional relationship problems; being embroiled in multiple family troubles; suffering from cirrhosis of the liver; and developing his efforts to bond with his two children Ben (Charlie Jones/Joshua Pascoe/Harry Reid/Max Bowden) and Louise (Rachel Cox/Brittany Papple/Tilly Keeper). The character has also been involved in several of the show's most highly-prolific storylines, which feature Phil having an affair with Grant's wife Sharon Watts (Letitia Dean) — a storyline popularly dubbed "Sharongate"; a problematic marriage to Ben's mother Kathy Beale (Gillian Taylforth); a longstanding rivalry with his tormented stepson and Kathy's eldest child, Ian Beale (Adam Woodyatt); a one-night stand with Ian's ex-wife, Mel Healy (Tamzin Outhwaite), that contributes to his major conflicts against both her husband Steve Owen (Martin Kemp) and fellow nemesis Dan Sullivan (Craig Fairbrass); an extensive quarrel with policewoman DCI Jill Marsden (Sophie Stanton); a resolved companionship with his cousin Billy (Perry Fenwick); becoming a father figure to Billy's estranged nephew, Jamie (Jack Ryder), until the latter is accidentally killed by his best-friend Martin Fowler (James Alexandrou); quarreling with Martin's older brother, Mark (Todd Carty), over Louise's parentage; conspiring with Sharon's adopted-brother, Dennis Rickman (Nigel Harman), to murder his crime boss Jack Dalton (Hywel Bennett); marrying Marsden's undercover constable, Kate Morton (Jill Halfpenny), after saving her from being killed by Dalton; being forced on the run after getting framed for armed robbery by Sharon and Dennis' illegitimate father Den Watts (Leslie Grantham); helping exonerate his sister Sam (Kim Medcalf) for Den's murder and prove that his second wife Chrissie (Tracy-Ann Oberman) is the true culprit; establishing a campaign against his gangland enemy, Johnny Allen (Billy Murray), that inevitably triggers the Get Johnny Week scenario; a short-lived wedding to Stella Crawford (Sophie Thompson when it transpires that she had been physically and mentally abusing Ben; becoming a prime suspect in the murder of his uncle Archie (Larry Lamb); exhibiting an addiction with cocaine that ultimately leads him to set fire to his mother's beloved public house, The Queen Victoria; getting shot by his old lover, Shirley Carter (Linda Henry), on his wedding day to Sharon; rescuing his two cousins Ronnie (Samantha Womack) and Roxy (Rita Simons) from being murdered by their notorious adversary Nick Cotton (John Altman); framing business rival Max Branning (Jake Wood) for the murder of Ian's daughter Lucy (Hetti Bywater), even though the killer was in fact Ian's youngest son Bobby (Eliot Carrington); coping with the death of his mother Peggy after she had cancer; getting hospitalized by Martin's wife Stacey Slater (Lacey Turner) after threatening to extort money from her close relative Kat (Jessie Wallace); ending his prolonged marriage to Sharon upon discovering that she had been sleeping with Louise's boyfriend, Keanu Taylor (Danny Walters), and that he is not responsible for her pregnancy as a result of their hidden romance; and being partly responsible for the death of Sharon's son Denny (Harry Hickles/Bleu Landau) after his confrontation with Keanu over the affair instigated a boat accident that resulted in the younger's death."

"One of the most culturally significant storylines featuring the character aired in 2001 and was dubbed "Who Shot Phil?". The events saw Phil shot in a whodunit mystery, with the assailant eventually revealed to be his former girlfriend and Louise's mother Lisa Shaw (Lucy Benjamin). The "Who Shot Phil?" storyline captured viewer and media interest and the culprit-reveal episode was watched by 22 million viewers." _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Like does that represent brief summary OR not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicky Haugh (talk • contribs)
 * That is no brief summary. Most of those storylines have had no development, so the recommended next steps would be either create development for all those stories or condense the lead to the prose that is there in the development section currently. Soaper1234 - talk  01:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I only saw this as I was stalking Soaper's contributions. But I'll copy here what I said on my talk page, as I don't know if you saw that or not.
 * "The information in the lead is being removed because it is not discussed in the article using reliable sources. It is also excessive detail only fans will likely be interested in. A lot of readers don't get beyond the lead, so it should summarise the article in a clear and concise way. If you had no idea who the character was, would you want to read through a list of fictional feuds, or learn more about casting, notable storylines and the impact he has had? If you take a look at WP:LEADDD, one of the points in the Don'ts column is Don't include information that is not covered later on. If you want that information included, then you could add the info covering the topic to the article, or take it to a fansite/Wikia." - JuneGloom07 Talk  02:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Page protection Request
Somebody protect this page. A user named user:Trueman31 has been making multiple accounts to sock and make many disruptive edits on this page with lies. His account is User:JimpixAP watch out for this user. WikiFlame50 (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Longest serving character
Phil is the longest serving character when you take other people's breaks into accord. However, the fact isn't reliably sourced so I've left it out of the article. – DarkGlow • 08:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)