Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders/Archive 16

Names not used on screen
Someone asked if Robbie Jackson would have been called Robbie Branning at birth, and I said we don't know because it was never used on screen. I think we shouldn't use names that haven't been used on screen, (maybe unless they are quite well known, such as Pat Harris). For example, Rose Cotton's two other married surnames have been added, as has her birth name. Also, the use of "née" seems wrong as characters aren't born, because it's a work of fiction (maybe even babies born on screen). Does any of this make sense? – anemone projectors – 13:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Total sense, sorry this has gone so long without a reply. I agree that using "née" doesn't seem right, as it treats the characters as though they're real, rather than created. I can't think of too many examples of the names-not-used-on-screen issue, but agree with your POV. If they've never been used, adding them to the lead would give them massive undue weight. I think this is a problem with middle names too, and perhaps full names as well. For example, the world knows Phil Mitchell as... Phil Mitchell. Yet his article begins Philip James "Phil" Mitchell... I'm not sure that's right. There are some MOS discussions that might be useful here and here, though I haven't read through the second one yet.  Frickative  14:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point regarding the middle names. I'm inclined to agree about those. How could we deal with last names, just use "previously" for all names? To be honest I wouldn't really like to lost the information completely. Perhaps these names are information that could be merged into backstory sections? – anemone projectors – 14:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I think the backstory section would be an excellent place for middle and full birth names. "Previously" in the lead was my first thought... there's the possibility of it sounding recentist, but the workaround of "Jane Doe (known as Jane Smith from 1998-99, Jane Brown from 2000-2005 and Jane Green from 2006-10) would be very clunky for a first sentence. Frickative  22:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move?
Marsden is NEVER called 'Jill'. Her current article is called Jill Marsden (EastEnders), who thinks it would be better to move it to; DCI Marsden? Mayhem Mario  16:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Honorifics and professional titles should not be included in the article name. See MOS:HONORIFIC and WP:CREDENTIAL. - JuneGloom    Talk  16:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Should stay where it is but she should be refered to as "Marsden" throughout. – anemone projectors – 16:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, when creating the article I thought, what the heck is her first name??!?!? :P Mayhem  Mario  16:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will add anything to the article, but there's a pretty good double page spread about Marsden's cases in this week's Inside Soap. - JuneGloom    Talk  18:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh..... Please June can you download it??!?! :P Mayhem  Mario  20:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah there's nothing to add from that, it's just a very brief plot recap :-) – anemone projectors – 14:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Greg Jessop
Hi everyone! I've been working on a draft for Greg here. I think he's good to have his own article. He has a lot of Creation and Development and a bit of Reception and 25 refs. What does everyone think? GSorby – Ping  13:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He's notable. It's not giving me leaps of joy, thats all im saying. Mayhem  Mario  16:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He appeared for less than a month (and barely did anything of note) and the article can't really be expanded in the future because he's gone. I think Greg should stay in the list. - JuneGloom    Talk  16:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * June, he appeared for a year, :) That shows how much of an impact Greg made, when no one knew how long he appeared for!!! :P Mayhem  Mario  16:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He left for a long time though. I don't have time to look over this to see what type of sources and information there are, but my head says he didn't make enough impact and the article can't be expanded, and my heart says there seem to be enough sources and it's a pretty long article. I'd rather go with my head... – anemone projectors – 16:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So he did, I read the infobox too quickly. But as Mario said, shows how much of an impact he made on me. - JuneGloom    Talk  16:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (After 4 edit conflicts, one from me) I dont want to be WP:BOLD and edit your sandbox, but a few tenses need fixing, the quote about how EastEnders will do at the BSA is not needed, ect...


 * Actually, now I look back on it, Greg could be split, I mean Lydia was split, wasnt she? Mayhem  Mario  16:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like she was worthy to be honest, but notability was apparently demonstrated. Same goes for Greg I suppose. Not that I've checked the content. Is it all good stuff or are we still turning into a fansite? – anemone projectors – 14:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Tracey
She's been an extra character since the show began; SURELY, by now, she should have her own page? JackJackUK (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why post it here and on the 1985 list?! Like I said there, Ive already created a sandbox for her here, which I, or you if you want too, will revamp in the upcoming weeks. Mayhem  Mario  20:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said before, I'd be strongly opposed to this. – anemone projectors – 14:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

David Wicks's staying... or leaving?
This article is semi-protected temporarily; nevertheless, we haven't still reach either the end of or Summer 2012. Even Bleaney and I argued and went bold against each other, and some people tried to convince this character's leaving with sources, yet Bleaney may have rebutted confirmations. Talk more in Talk:David Wicks; otherwise, what do you think? --George Ho (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, like I said at Wicks' talk page, a source confirms that his return is temp, I will add it now. Mayhem  Mario  20:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do Mario, all I ever wanted was a source!!! Bleaney (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * - That's literally the best I can do. :) Mayhem  Mario  20:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's what you mean. --George Ho (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I dont think we can use Sharon Marshall as an official source though. Bleaney (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why and/or how did you change your mind, Bleaner? --George Ho (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When have I ever said that Sharon Marshall can be classed as an official source? The source must come from say the BBC itself, or an interview with a producer or the actor who confirmed it. I might be wrong here, as if we have used Sharon Marshall in the past, then fair enough, go for it. But if we havent im not sure we can use that source. Bleaney (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Please do Mario, all I ever wanted was a source!!!" These were your words, and enthusiasm from you seemed intense. --George Ho (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * lol, yes George, I do want a source. just one thats official thats all. We dont usually use these kind of sources in reporting cast changes. The same goes for reports in national newspapers like the Star and the Sun, unless we have an official source backing it up. Bleaney (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We can use Sharon Marshall as a reliable source. We have done in the past. – anemone projectors – 14:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable characters... or lists of characters of EastEnders?
Is keeping Ashley Cotton worth the effort, for example? I don't know why many biographies of fictional characters (other than Pat Butcher, Frank Butcher, Pauline Fowler, Kathy Beale, and some other major characters) of EastEnders may be kept; nevertheless, WP:PLOT is a policy and must be considerate. Look at David Wicks; suddenly, I have not seen evidence of impact and reception from this character, even when the press have covered him as a promotion or a mere recap of fictional events; nevertheless, he is too much a big event to every British citizen. How David Wicks is a popular character without reception and impact from non-primary reliable sources is beyond me. --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to)..  GunGagdin Moan 07:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * George Ho, some of your comments above are not written in understandable language. "WP:PLOT is a policy and must be considerate" AND "suddenly, I have not seen evidence of impact and reception from this character, even when the press have covered him as a promotion or a mere recap of fictional events; nevertheless, he is too much a big event to every British citizen".......Pardon? These sentences may as well be gibberish. Let's assume you are saying that no one has added reception to the David Wicks article since the time you decided that reception for any character article was a necessity. Well, just because it hasnt been added yet, doesnt mean it wont be, this wikiproject does a great job and has completely transformed UK soap pages; it takes time and snapping your fingers will not make editing happen more quickly. If you are that desperate to see a reception section, feel free to do it yorself. Editing articles yourself and finding sources would be a lot more useful than continuously templating articles and wittering on about policy to editiors who have been here years before you and are already aware of these policies.  GunGagdin Moan 08:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for sounding gibberish, but I'll rephrase: "Why would anyone start an article with a plot and then leave only plot remaining? That would make the topic non-notable. Look at Sam Malone; it's full of plot treated as a biography, and anyone would assume that he is non-notable because no reception or impact is consisted, even when he is popular among people. Look at Storm in a Teacup (film); it had a lot of reception but very little plot summary, yet I consider it notable (previously, I PRODded it because I assumed that film was hopeless to put effort on) because... people published their own analyses and opinions on this fictional topic.
 * Same goes for David Wicks, even with "Development" that balances fiction and reality. I assume that he is non-notable, even when he is famous among fans, because no reception and analysis were found yet. I would love to be bold on David Wicks, but I have over 800 pages in my watchlist, and I spent more time on Cheers, images, and sources. --George Ho (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * GeorgeHo, you seem to be making the assumption that because reception/development has yet to be added, none exists and thus the topic is non-notable. A cursory search of archive sites such as The Free Library, Highbeam or Questia will show that is not the case for the majority of characters. There's no deadline on Wikipedia, and articles that can be readily improved shouldn't be removed just because no one has got around to fixing them up yet. Frickative  11:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that a few years ago, every character had an article, even those appearing in just one episode (remember Sid?!!!). A lot of work has gone into creating 26 character lists and putting them all in order. A few characters didn't get merged to the lists because we either missed them off or felt them to be notable enough, with sources to be added in the future. A good example was Sarah Hills until someone decided she should be merged due to lack of sources. But the sources should be there. So if you want to expand an article, just do it. – anemone projectors – 14:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added sources into "Further reading" of David Wicks. I could not find anything significant for Ashley Cotton; I wonder if I could either merge it into PLOT-only List of EastEnders characters (2000), which is what Wikipedia is not, nominate it for AfD or PROD, or redirect it into his portrayer. --George Ho (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at Ashley's page now, I was able to find two sources in 10 minutes. That article has room for expansion. No need to "re-merge" it to the list. GSorby – Ping  13:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just found a lovely piece about Frankie Fitzgerald's casting as Ashley. One of the EE books will hopefully contain some info about the actor who first portrayed the character. - JuneGloom    Talk  15:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article some more, it doesn't look that bad. - JuneGloom    Talk  16:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's see; what about Laura Beale? The plot took over much of an article; one sentence of reception stood out, but it still looks bad. I don't see real-world tone in plots. I'll find other articles that are badly shaped. --George Ho (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no need bud. I know all of the articles that require expanding and I will get round to them soon. GSorby – Ping  22:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * George Ho, you don't need to find and list any other articles that need real world info, as the project has a handy category for that - Category:EastEnders articles in need of real-world perspective. - JuneGloom    Talk  22:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * George Ho, I look forward to seeing the improvements you will be making to the Laura Beale article. Lots of sources on the talk page already there for you to get started on. Let us know how you get on....  GunGagdin Moan 00:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added opinions from The Mirror and "Further Reading" in Laura Beale. There are more: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/search/Search.aspx?SearchBy=0&Word=hannah+waterman+laura+eastenders&By=0. --George Ho (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the point of "further reading"? How is it important to the characters? How will it help Wikipedia Users? I don't see the need of them and it certainly makes the pages look untidy. GSorby – Ping  01:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well... his dad was too concerned about her acting in EastEnders. If not in "Laura Beale", is it suitable in EastEnders or anywhere? He said, acting was "diabolical." --George Ho (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Then that can be used in the actress' article, Hannah Waterman as a source. GSorby – Ping  11:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Further reading sections
I noticed a user has been adding "Further reading" sections to some characters. I changed one because it was an external link and not a book, but these would be better used as sources if the information is there. So is this what we want? – anemone projectors – 16:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think they should be used as sources instead. Further reading sections are superfluous.  GunGagdin Moan 07:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What about non-EastEnders articles: Hamlet and other FA articles? They have Further readings. --George Ho (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hamlet doesn't have further reading? And you're missing the point, this is WP:EE. We've never had further reading. GSorby – Ping  11:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And the person is adding external links as if they are futher reading. These sections should be removed and used as sources. I would also like to point out to that person that when we have an unused source that we think could be used, we add it to the talk page, rather than dump it in "external links" (or "further reading") – anemone projectors – 13:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the point in it myself - I'd prefer to see sources left on the talk page until someone integrates their content into the body of the article, as is the current norm - but such sections are allowed for in the MOS (WP:FURTHER), so I don't think that just deleting them from articles is the most productive step. Frickative  14:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree we should leave them there if they're there, but try to integrate them. But websites should be ELs not FRs. – anemone projectors – 14:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you know about external links and "Further reading"? Storm in a Teacup (film) has links in Further reading section; is there anything wrong with that? --George Ho (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Judging from Further reading, which says, it's a matter of preference, although the same page notes that when the two sections are short, they may be merged into one. I'm not really sure what the difference is meant to be between them? Frickative  22:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Morgan Jackson-King
Would Morgan Jackson-King be able to have his own article now? I created the page However it has been put back to a List of characters page (2008). I think it should be a page on it's own now. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, he has barely any sources and is a very minor character. Morgan is fine in the list. GSorby – Ping  01:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He is not notable which is why I redirected it back to the list. He does not need an article of his own just because he dad is coming into the show - he is still non notable - it was a stub at best. Not to mention one more problem to sort out. Rain  the 1  02:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Cora Cross
Hi everyone. Finished my draft on the frog-lips lady, er, I mean Cora. It's located here. Average article with all the real-world ifo I could find but can be expanded when more becomes available. What does everyone think? GSorby – Ping  21:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To me it looks good. And just for the record, I'm working on my new favourite character, Ray Dixon, here. But it's nowhere near ready just yet. – anemone projectors – 13:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's missing the fabulous bit of reception info I added to her list entry... - JuneGloom    Talk  13:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, like AP, Ive got quite far with Whitney's Story here. What does everyone think??!? Mayhem  Mario  20:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow that's pretty impressive! May need checking for grammar and punctuation? – anemone projectors – 13:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's an awful lot of tables, could some of the info be turned into prose? - JuneGloom    Talk  15:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thorough work Mario, good job! Related to June's comment, I think the long table of ratings might be a bit excessive, as there was a lot going on beside's Whitney's storyline in most of those eps - perhaps you could pick out the highlights, such as Whitney's escape, Rob's death etc and summarise the ratings for those in prose? Cora looks very solid too, and Ray is shaping up well! Frickative  15:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also think the tables are excessive because it took the background for some episodes it ran through. There are only a few entries in ther EE Revealed ratings table. Did any other sources other than Digital Spy cover the storyline? It is used a lot through out. Rain  the 1  15:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree about the tables. Was going to say that yesterday but ran out of time :-) – anemone projectors – 14:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoops! Forgot about this, I did also think the amount of tables was rather striking, so im going to keep:


 * Where the DS's article is named as part of the storyline, i.e. Whitney escpaes Rob's clutches.
 * If the storyline was mentioned in the ratings.
 * Or if the doof doof ended with the storyline. :) Mayhem  Mario  12:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

List of EastEnders cast members
As many of you may probably already be aware of, my grammar sucks. Also, I've been working on User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders cast members for a very very long time, and have just this week updated it with all the stuff I'd missed since I last updated it in May 2011. I never wanted to move it to the mainspace until it was fully referenced, but I don't think I can wait that long, and it's something that can be done over time, like the list of soap opera villains was. So what do you all think? Is it worth putting in the mainspace now? I've only included actors that I felt made a significant contribution to the series, although Frank Barrie as Edward Bishop is there... so if there are names you feel are missing or shouldn't be listed, feel free to discuss. Also, if I've missed any characters off or made any mistakes, please let me know, especially in relation to changes over the past few months. Also, is the lead good enough? Thanks! – anemone projectors – 14:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd support splitting it, the rest of the sources can be added over time. I think the lead could be changed, it seems a bit selective such as picking Linda Henry and Diane Parish out when they aren't more notable than other actors who have portrayed several parts unless you said several actors have portrayed regulars and other minor parts with notable examples being Parish and Henry. D4nnyw14 (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Those were just two I could think of off the top of my head, I think. Actually, I was hoping to expand the lead so it would be eligible for DYK, before moving it into the mainspace! – anemone projectors – 13:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oi everyone, more comments/help please! :-) – anemone projectors – 15:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Reg Cox.jpg
I have asked for a of File:Reg Cox.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. George Ho (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Am I alone in wondering what the point is to all of these escapades to return deleted media to the project? Give it a month and WP:EE will have a reputation of being the non-free image hotspot. Rain  the 1  03:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did that come from? That image got deleted years ago...<b style="color:blue;font-family:Verdana">GSorby</b> – Ping  09:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Asif - the two images have been restored without discussion. Two images to illustrate one section in a list seems a bit much to me. Rain  the 1  12:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What the hell? Why were these images restored? Where's the discussion? Who did it?!!? – anemone projectors – 14:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it now. George Ho requested their undeletion. Totally unnecessary! – anemone projectors – 14:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Reg cox civvy.JPG being the other image. – anemone projectors – 14:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact is, they may not be replaceable, but they're not necessary. We don't need to know what they look like. There's no critical commentary on the character's appearance. – anemone projectors – 14:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Guys this is getting blown WAY out of proportion! I'm talking about the addition of this How does this aid the reader?! Enlighten me! George Ho, you are making a complete mess of things! <b style="color:blue;font-family:Verdana">GSorby</b> – Ping  22:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeings as he added them to the list - our opinion must not count. Rain  the 1  23:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, and maybe only I see it this way, but I think it is good to have pictures of characters in place, notable or not, if the pictures are obtainable. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all images will qualify for WP:NFCC. In fact nearly none of them do. <b style="color:blue;font-family:Verdana">GSorby</b> – Ping  08:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact is, the image was deleted because it was orphaned because it didn't satisfy WP:NFCC, and it still doesn't, and should not have gone to deletion review. – anemone projectors – 13:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Merging two images of Mark Fowler into one?


I have found an image from this source that would truly represent Mark Fowler: http://www.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article170582.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/mark-fowler-played-by-david-scarboro-andtodd-carty-186146261.jpg

If the above image won't do, what about merging two existing images into one, just as an infobox image in Ben Mitchell (EastEnders)?

I have created File:David Scarboro Mark Fowler EastEnders BBC.jpg intended for David Scarboro article. I removed the other image from that article because the rationale for it wasn't there. --George Ho (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We didn't merge the images, they were merged here. The good thing about that is that the two Bens were compared for the way they look, which is why it was a good idea to do this kind of thing. With Mark, I don't see the problem with two separate images, or using that one you linked to. Either seems fine to me. Perhaps we could do this for more characters, like Lauren Branning, Sam Mitchell or Lucy Beale. – anemone projectors – 12:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm..... Gungadin wouldn't mind, as long as I provide strong rationale. I guess, you approve, as well. I'm waiting for GSorby's opinions, as he did both of them. Look at file logs. --George Ho (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Gungadin uploaded both files originally, GSorby just reduced them in size. The old revisions have been deleted. – anemone projectors – 13:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Still, he is also one of contributors. Also, I have conflicts with GSorby, especially whenever I tried to replace images in Pauline Fowler and Nick Cotton. I have standards, lots of them: I do not copy and paste non-free rationales into image pages just because they are easy to do; I write them instead. Moreover, look at his attitude toward me, especially in Gungadin's talk page and Talk:EastEnders. Even when I substantially edit a same image page... I don't know.

By the way, I read your thoughts about the way I treat images. You said: I am "certainly wrong to want these images just so [I] can identify the characters in [my] head". I treat images of actors as actors; well, I do. However, you may have good points: I should be cautious about using images for a purpose, and I must provide a strong purpose. For example, I must find an image that truly represents generally a character. Or I might have implied incorrectly. --George Ho (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The point of images is that they should enhance readers' understanding of the subject, and in general, you don't necessarily need to know what a character looks like to understand what they are about. I guess it can help, but wanting to have an image just so you can remember the character isn't what we have images for. This is why having critical commentary on some aspect of the character's appearance is always very helpful for strengthening non-free image rationales, as if someone has talked about what the character looks like, then it's always good to know what that person is talking about by being able to see them. But to understand that Ronnie Branning swapped a baby, for example, doesn't need a picture of Ronnie. – anemone projectors – 13:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Splitting off Ray Dixon?
Does anyone think it's time to split Ray Dixon? See my draft User:AnemoneProjectors/Ray Dixon. 15 of the refs are non-storyline refs. – anemone projectors – 13:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Decent content and very good real-world info. Go for it. <b style="color:blue;font-family:Verdana">GSorby</b> – Ping  13:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I would agree it would be good with a separate article. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I will get around to it soon, as it's been a while now and nobody has objected. – anemone projectors – 12:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that he is notable enough to have his own page though. He hasn't done much 81.20.179.232 (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I wouldn't look to split off any character unless they have been appearing regularly for 6 months, despite how many references we have. Bleaney (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe notability has been demonstrated in the article. Duration shouldn't really matter, as long as they are notable. We did agree 6 months but I don't think that should apply anymore, as it's notability that matters. Just look at Poppy Meadow. – anemone projectors – 13:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just look at Lydia Simmonds !! <b style="color:blue;font-family:Verdana">George</b> Ping! 14:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * True! Though Poppy's actually a GA. Also, we know Venn was contracted for 6 months, and we're already 4 months into that. – anemone projectors – 14:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion was open for quite a while, so objections probably should have been raised then. As AP said notability has been demonstrated and as he is an ongoing character, there is potential for more information to appear. Unlike Lydia, who should have been redirected back to the list by now. The only thing she is notable for is having two actresses play her. Lydia's so called storyline development is actually Janine's. - JuneGloom    Talk  16:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dont even get me started on Poppy Meadow! Yeah its a GA, but us regular fans of EE just KNOW that in the grand scheme of things she is not notable vis a vis the history of EE. I really just think that we should bulk up character's references on the list, and keep going like that until we know the character is going to last more than 6 months. But hey its just my opinion. Bleaney (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Poppy may not appear to be notable to someone watching the show, but in the real-world, notability has certainly been proven. – anemone projectors – 10:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Re-introducing Sharon
I'm wary to edit this as I don't know what the guidelines (if any exist) are, so here I am. Surely the infobox Sharon Watts should read that she is being introduced in 2012 by Bryan Kirkwood, not Lorraine Newman? Sure, it looks like Newan will be the show-runner when the character returns but the return was announced under Kirkwood before he quit the role, and sources directly mention that it is him who has been working on getting Letitia Dean back for "quite some time". Indeed, the article's lead directly states that it is Kirkwood who is re-introducing Sharon. So is there any problem with changing the infobox? U-Mos (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you are right, feel free to change.  GunGagdin Moan 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends who is credited as Exec in her return episode. – anemone projectors – 13:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont agree, Bryan signed her, so he reintriduced her, the new exec may just be overseeing the return, but they werent responsible for signing the contract.  GunGagdin Moan 15:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Gungagdin. Bryan signed her back up - so he is responible for reintroducing her. Rain  the 1  15:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought we always said the introducer was the person who executively produced their first episode. That's how many of the older ones may have been assumed. – anemone projectors – 13:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Gungadin, Sharon's return was announced before Kirkwood got sacked, so therefore, he should be the introducer. <b style="color:blue;font-family:Verdana">George</b> Ping! 14:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I still agree, and Newman is only "acting" EP anyway. But.... Kirkwood got SACKED?! – anemone projectors – 14:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Episode numbers
Can anyone help with this? I'm trying to find a site that lists the episodes along with their airdates and episode numbers (for example, last night's was #4419). We used to use Holy Soap, but that's now gone and the Wayback Machine has nothing before about August 2010. Tvtv.co.uk would be good but as soon as the episode has aired, the page for the episode vanishes and the site is not possible to archive. Radio Times has a good guide, but after the episode has aired, the episode date disappears. Also, it doesn't include the broadcast year. I can archive Radio Times pages, but I'd like to find a list that has all the dates and all the numbers, like Holy Soap had. Can anyone help? Otherwise I'll carry on archiving Radio Times pages! It's for this: User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders episodes (2012) (and other years, see User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders episodes). – anemone projectors – 12:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Tiffany Dean/Butcher
Hey everyone, hope you've all been okay. Recently, someone started a discussion at Talk:Tiffany Dean about moving the page to reflect her current name. I agree with this as she is more widely known as Butcher and I don't remember calling her Dean anymore! Ideas? <b style="color:blue;font-family:Verdana">George</b> Ping! 07:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally Frickative would compare Google News results for this kind of thing, and Tiffany Dean is still beating Tiffany Butcher... but I do feel it's probably time to move her myself. – anemone projectors – 13:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't even remember her being called Dean. She is much more known as Butcher 81.20.179.232 (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I've put in a proper move request for this at the talk page, which will hopefully allow it to happen. Please discuss further there. U-Mos (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Jase Dyer
Can people please keep an eye on this article. An anon person has filled it with real-world information, but first it was all unsourced, then they have been adding unreliable sources and forums, now their own opinions, removing my tags without addressing issues, and the writing is really poor. If anyone has time to check it all out, make sure that all quotes are sourced and all sources match up, and that nothing is personal opinion, please help. – anemone projectors – 13:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have a go at cleaning it up. - JuneGloom    Talk  16:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made a start by changing the tenses in the storylines section, rewriting and sourcing the casting, characterisation and Roxy sections and adding some reception info. Though I was hindered a little by the IP, who kept removing the maintenance templates and then blanking sections of the article. - JuneGloom    Talk  20:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Nico and Andonis
Nico's last name in credits is spelt Papadolpoulos, we have his uncle as Andonis Papadopolous. Should we change the spelling to Papadolpoulos? – anemone projectors – 09:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think so. Bleaney (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's a good idea without his name (or the man himself) appearing in the future. Surely we should keep the spelling used in all his credited appearances? (Though it would be worth noting in Adonis' section I suppose.) Having said that, I'm assuming he was credited as "Mr Popadopolous" rather than "Adonis" in the 90s. U-Mos (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes he was. Bleaney (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * True. According to IMDb, he was credited as "Mr. Papadopolous". Actually, we've used the spelling used in the first credited appearance, but the next two are "Nico Papadopoulos". Which is the more normal spelling of the name. I thought the L looked weird in the middle. I'll get taking it out! – anemone  projectors – 13:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, alternate ways
I disgaree with AJ, Joey & Poppy being counted as being introduced by Bryan, when he wasnt. However, if people disagree with this, then I was supposing we introduce the 'creator' field, then at least Lorriane would be credited when it is her work. — M.Mario  (T/C) 17:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Do we not include both of them? I swear that characters who were introduced during the interim period between Santer and Kirkwood they were both listed as introducing them? Like I think it was a baby; obviously the character had been 'made pregnant' by Santer but the character developed by Kirkwood? Alex250P (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, no, your talking about when the week of charaters were introduced when both Santer and Kirkwood were creidted as EP's. However, thats the point im trying to make, Lorraine made the character, but Kirkwood introduced it. — M.Mario  (T/C) 19:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you any reliable sources that Newman created the characters? Executive Producers don't create the characters, the writers do (with the exception of Lauren Branning). If a character's first episode is credited along with Kirkwood, then that person is the introducer. <b style="color:blue;font-family:Verdana">George</b> Ping! 19:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We rarely know who creates a character (not always a writer), but we've always put the introducer as the person credited as EP in that episode. If the current episodes are still Kirkwood productions, how can someone else be the introducer? She may be the EP during broadcast, but not when the episode was actually made. (And as George says, Santer and Kirkwood shared the credit for a short while when Vanessa was bought in.) – anemone projectors – 13:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (Apparently we won't see Newman's name in the credits as EP until August?) – anemone projectors – 13:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not always true AP, but you won't get it accurate without a source. The problem is that the new producers pick and chose when there name goes on the credits. Half the ideas might be their own, but while the other half are the old producer's - so they leave their name off until all work is their own. She could introduce a character early - and it had nothing to do with Kirkwood. Rain  the 1  14:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So if we can't use the credits as a way of knowing, then we can't assume either way and will have to leave it blank, right? – anemone projectors – 14:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to say that Lorraine Newman appears as EP in credits week after next. – anemone projectors – 13:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If we go by this rule, wouldnt Lorraine Newman have introduced Sharon? — M.Mario  (T/C) 19:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What rule? No rule has been decided in this conversation. We have had this conversation re Sharon elsewhere, and the fact of the matter is that we have sources to state that Kirkwood reintroduced Sharon. Her return is being overseen by Newman, but she inherited it from Kirkwood. We dont need to go by credits because we actually have numerous sources saying her signed Letitia. That means he introduced her. Just as Santer introduced Mercy and Kirkwood oversaw that. We are talking introduced in the OOU sense. So it's who resigned the character or decided they were returning. Not who constructed or oversaw their return storyline.  GunGagdin Moan 19:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes much more sense. I hadnt seen the conversation about Sharon, that's why I brought it back up, :) — M.Mario  (T/C) 19:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That does make much more sense - but what do we therefore do about AJ, Joey and Poppy? – anemone projectors – 11:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why dont we just go by who the Exec producer is when the announcement is made? If a characters arrival, departure or return is announced by the beeb, we should credit it as the work of the Exec producer at the time, regardless of who it is when the events play out on screen? Bleaney (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think if we have a source saying a certain producer signed an actress, then we go by that. In an absence of an external news source or announcement, then we defer to the credits as the source. They're the only options imo as we have to at least show where the info is coming from for future reference.  GunGagdin Moan 18:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, if we have a source that clearly states who signed/resigned/axed a character, then we must go by that. However, if their is not clear statement its tough. For instance Alice Branning Didnt arrive onscreen until after Kirkwood had left EE. But we had news from the BBC that the character was being cast BEFORE he left, so in this instance id say Kirkwood was the introducer of Alice. Bleaney (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * More good points, I agree with those. Of course, this usually won't be a problem as there isn't usually a new EP! – anemone projectors – 13:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Winston First App?
We have extra Winston (EastEnders) lited as first appearing in Walford in 1985, however whilst looking through Rain's list of EastEnders links, there is an interview with Browne, who claims that; "I've been in the programme since 1986. I met with Julia Smith who was the Executive Producer back then, and she offered me the job. I've never looked back! It's a great place to work". This means that he first appeared in 1986, not what we have down. Needs changing? Interview — M.Mario  (T/C) 20:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see the link from where I am right now but it looks like we do need to move Winston! – anemone projectors – 14:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Kat's affair
I don't know if anyone else has, but I've started a draft article for the storyline User:AnemoneProjectors/Kat's mystery affair. If anyone has sources, please use the talk page. I have several magazine article and haven't looked much online yet. I'm looking for opinions, clues and stuff like that. – anemone projectors – 13:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from this week's Inside Soap, which I've bought but not yet read, I have now added every source I have so far from the magazines. Does anyone have anything else? Obviously, there will be new stuff every week as there are more and more clues. – anemone projectors – 14:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from expanding the lead and adding an 'External links' section, it looks great! It's a shame there are no free image of Wallace. — M.Mario  (T/C) 15:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't worked on the lead yet, it's usually the last thing I do. What external links are there to add? – anemone projectors – 12:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, what do we think of the article's title? I had to make it up, because I couldn't find anything to say it has a name. If it's nominated for an award for best storyline, we'll find out then! But what until then? – anemone projectors – 12:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean to add the "External Links" title. Im not sure about the title, a she has had affairs before, so... But, for now, I think it is the best. — M.Mario  (T/C) 15:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Her affairs were never a mystery before. I suppose "Kat's mystery affair storyline in EastEnders" would be a descriptive title, until such time as we know of a name for it (or stay as it is). I don't have any external links to add, so I don't need a title (section) for them. – anemone projectors – 13:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I seem to be the only one commenting, the article looks very good! I think you shouldnt single out Derek, and I think the article should just have a picture of the Vic. Anyway, thats my opinion. — M.Mario  (T/C) 15:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd have liked photos for each actor (for Kat and the five suspects) but Jamie Foreman is the only one we have available, which is a shame. Then again, I'm sure we could use the image here under fair use (but I couldn't upload it until the article went live). – anemone  projectors – 12:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Storyline development
I just want to ask if you guys can think of more original subsection headers for articles. The whole generic "storyline development" section appears to have began here. But now it has infected many other soap articles, mainly Coronation Street. I'm starting to think that editors are unwilling conjure more descriptive titles. Rain  the 1  00:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Whilst on the topic of SD, can I just point out that it isnt just a section to re-hash storylines? Some artilces just seem to say the exact thing in the storyline section, but with a reference on the end. However, im not sure about what Rain said, the title can eb good for some artilces, but other not. — M.Mario  (T/C) 09:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I cant think of any other term that describes (in an OOU way) how a character is growing, because development essentially means change or a progression of sorts. For us 'Development' is the overarching heading, but there are subheadings for specific or significant parts that make up development like 'Sharongate' or Exit, or marriage to ....., and the word development doesnt need to feature again in further titles. Can you point to examples of where it's being used inappropriately in articles? I think having consistency across wikipedia soap articles is a good thing in gerneral. I suppose if you wanted alternatives to development, you could use various synonyms to say the same thing? Like Progression, Evolution, Advancement or Characterisation changes etc? I dont think these are commonly used terms in works of fiction though. Development is a commonly used term.


 * Mario, the development section should defintely be different to plot. At times it may be necessary to describe plot elements in development, but in general you can actually go into much more detail about plot specifics in development because it is sourced. If you have specific articles you are referring to that rehash information, can you name them please so we can all assess.  GunGagdin Moan 16:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I do remember that people began to be a little too creative with subheadings a while back, but I agree it should define what - an example Ben Mitchell would have 'Development' then 'Sexuality' and then 'Heather's Murder' or something to distinguish the two. Alex250P (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

1985 Image
The current image on the 1985 list only shows a few characters, I've found one which shows most of them: here. It's okayish quality, and if anyone wants to upload it (with better quality) or disagrees then well, do it. — M.Mario  (T/C) 12:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thoughts? — M.Mario  (T/C) 10:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say if it covers more characters in one image, then no one would object to you changing it.  GunGagdin Moan 18:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay; it's just its a bit worse quality. I'll get someone to upload it. — M.Mario  (T/C) 18:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think because the size is smaller on the actual page it will be displayed on, the real sized quality isnt that important. Bad images always look less shit when they are smaller! Why does someone else have to upload it? It's easily done.  GunGagdin Moan 18:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because I always mess it up, I have a go though.. :) — M.Mario  (T/C) 19:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Image Captions
Hello everyone. I'm gonna bring this up because M.Mario has performed yet another project wide change without discussing it. Since when did we add captions in the format ? I thought we only did this when there were more than one actor in the role but Mario has done it for every single page? Anyone know of this? <b style="color:blue;font-family:Verdana">George</b> Ping! 21:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You could have had a consensus, then reverted if it came about this way. From your contribs it seem you were rather harsh, deleting all captions. Surely a caption is much better than none? Also, some character articles already had this format, so I changed it to make it consistent. You also deleted all my other fixes, when you were reverting those others. So, all my work, deleted by you because you could not wait for people to reply to this. If people agree with you, fair enough. I just think we should have a consistent caption for EE articles, I cant think why we cant have this as a caption. So, yeah. Im sorry for not discussing it, but I didnt think it was a that big deal. — M.Mario  (T/C) 22:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The topic has been brought up in the past. I cant recall a consensus but there may be one if you look through the archives of the EE project. I think some thought a caption was not needed at all if only one actor has portrayed the character. Personally, I dont see the harm in captions on any image, because it allows people to know when the capture was taken. I recall that it was decided that any image should always start with the character name and then the portrayer. So for instance you would put "Lucy Beale as portrayed by Hetti Bywater (2012)" and not "Hetti Bywater as Lucy Beale", because the article is about the character. Of course, if there is only one actor you probably wouldnt need to add the "portrayed by".  GunGagdin Moan 23:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe sorry Mario but "Make-project-wide-changes-without-discussing" is your middle name! Oh no...all that work...that'll teach you for not discussing! <b style="color:blue;font-family:Verdana">George</b> Ping! 00:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gungadin. Of course, if a character only appeared in one year, then the caption wouldn't be needed either. – anemone projectors – 12:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A bit of help about using a rule here on another article
Hi all Eastenders fans/editors, I was just wondering could you use a rule on this on Charlie Harper (Talk: Charlie Harper for discussion). Since we mention everyone who plays a character, no matter how small the stint, but another wikipedian says that we can't mention Kathy Bates being the character as it was less than what Sheen had acted. Who's in the right and wrong? Thanks Dontforgetthisone (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no "rules" regarding this. Consensus formed at one article can't necessarily apply at another because circumstances may be different. In this case Bates appeared as Harper for part of only one episode out of 199 episodes that have been aired to date. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympic episode
User:AnemoneProjectors/EastEnders episode 4466. Thoughts please, especially on the page title! I always fail to write a good lead, so don't have a go at me about that. – anemone projectors – 14:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You could just call it Episode 4466, similar to what I did with this article. - JuneGloom    Talk  16:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's probably best, as EastEnders doesn't name it's episodes in general, and at least it follows the same format as yours... the "EastEnders" part wouldn't be needed. The only other thing EastEnders does is use the broadcast date, so I'd have to call it something complicated, but as there were two episodes it might be confusing. So I think "Episode 4466" would be best! Thanks. Any other comments? Anyone want to help with the lead? Any suggestions for DYK before the article goes live? – anemone projectors – 10:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Couldn't the red button stuff be worked in and then the article could be called Billy's Olympic nightmare??? Bleaney (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've worked it in as you can see, but the article is mainly about episode 4466, not "Billy's Olympic Nightmare", which will be a redirect to the relevant section. – anemone projectors – 14:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I just hate the title Episode 4466 I dont suppose COMMONNAME could worked into this discussion lol? Bleaney (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole article, so you'll want to include some of the filming and reception info in it. - JuneGloom    Talk  20:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I hate the idea of this article being named episode 4466. It should at least have eastenders in the title so people know what it is. No one is going to search for "Episode 4466". At least if you have eastenders in the title it would appear in a drop down search field but overall I prefer the idea of it being called Eastenders: Billy's olympic nightmare moreso.  GunGagdin Moan 03:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If Episode 4466 is the title of the episode, then that's what the article should be called. You could add (EastEnders) like with Episode 14 (Twin Peaks) though. The only reason I didn't do that with Episode 6188 was that it was highly unlikely there would be another notable episode from a series with the same title. The directors guild who nominated the ep called it 6188 too, so I didn't really have a choice. I would dearly love to have called it something like "Mark Brennan's exit" or "Neighbours' real-time episode". - JuneGloom    Talk  12:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I didnt mean it to sound like I was criticizing you for naming it that June. you're right, you had no choice if there are sources to say that the episode was actually named that. Do we have a source to say this episode is named this? If not (and perhaps even if we do have a source) I personally feel that including eastenders somewhere in the title is important.  GunGagdin Moan 12:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with June here. We don't have a title, all we know is that it is the 4466th episode. If it gets an award nomination, we might get a name for it. I would like to put the word "EastEnders" somewhere in the title, but I don't see how we can. We could create redirects for it. We can't call it "Billy's Olympic Nightmare" because that was the extra Red Button episode, not the one with the live segment. I'll stick with Episode 4466 for now, and will try to write a lead, but I never do well at them. – anemone projectors – 12:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * But what's wrong with calling it EastEnders episode blah blah? Why is that inaccurate in any way?  GunGagdin Moan 13:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And I didn't mean for it to sound like you were criticizing me, Gungadin. :) If you want to put EastEnders in the title AP, then maybe call it Episode 4466 (EastEnders). I don't like writing leads either, some come easier to me than others. - JuneGloom    Talk  22:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I'll create a load of redirects! – anemone projectors – 12:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've gone live with the article now. Any ideas for a DYK? Shall I go for GA? – anemone projectors – 14:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes go for GA! And I really dont know any DYK ideas, sorry! — M.Mario  (T/C) 19:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

About the episode, it's been given an award nomination under the name "Billy and the Olympic torch". Should we rename the article? – anemone projectors – 13:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ive always thought the article should be renamed. Bleaney (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We didn't have a name for it though - EastEnders rarely name the episodes. All About Soap have named it though, so it's not an offical name and it's mentioned in the lead. Future award nominations may come up with other names. "Billy and the Olympic Torch" could be the aritcle title (as the only name given to the episode), but we shouldn't sauy it's the episode name. – anemone projectors – 18:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Dashes
The issue of whether to use an en dash (–) or em dash (—) to show a character's ongoing duration has been raised at Talk:Poppy Meadow. User:RexxS found the relevant MoS info, which states that an en dash should be used. At the moment, most of the current EE characters use the em dash and I just wanted to check that it was okay to change it to the en dash. - JuneGloom    Talk  20:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree 100%. I say to use the em dash. <b style="color:blue;font-family:Verdana">George</b> Ping! 20:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're disagreeing with the Manual of Style? Could you explain a little more about why that is? - JuneGloom    Talk  20:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I really couldn't give a rat's ass to be honest. Bleaney (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No comment. <b style="color:blue;font-family:Verdana">George</b> Ping! 20:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I might not care about this, but George, how can you disagree with something 100%, and then not comment as to why? Bleaney (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because my reason is childish and pathetic lol. It looks better/tidier, that's all and I'm used to them. <b style="color:blue;font-family:Verdana">George</b> Ping! 20:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont think that's childish! Fair play to you Georgy! Bleaney (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't think that's a good enough reason to go against the guideline. Sometimes we have to put up with things we don't like. - JuneGloom    Talk  00:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We should change it, but we'll find lots of people changing back. That includes the list of characters and list of past characters too. But I swear we started doing it because it WAS in the MOS. – anemone projectors – 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Relatives - to include or not include?
I always thought that the rule of thumb was simple... we only list a characters relatives on their respetive pages IF they had shared a scene together. But now i'm confused... apparently it is right to list Inzamam as AJ's brother, even though they have not shared a scene... so therefore... Should Alice and Joey be listed as Jim's grandchildren...? Should Dennis Jr be listed as Den and Angie's grandson...? I just dont know! Bleaney (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That rule is correct, BUT we also list all DIRECT relatives as they should always be important, whether they appeared or not. That means parents, siblings and children. Not grandchildren. So Inzamam should be listed on AJ's page, but not the others you mention. – anemone projectors – 13:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK,I get it now. Bleaney (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Durations in "Others" tables
So as we all know, we have "Others" tables in our character lists. As of 2012, I've been trying to improve these tables by changing the alignment of the text to top-aligned, and now I've gone ahead and added the number of episodes for characters who appeared in more than one episode. I am wondering if we should change the "Date(s)" column to "Duration" and just put the first and last episodes there, even if they are three years apart. Then there will be the number of episodes. The storyline part will hopefully be fully referenced (I have so far made sure it is), and this will therefore give the references for every episode a character appears in, and we could remove the references from the duration column, something that creates problems with column width and text wrapping. Also, with every episode date gone, where a character appears, for example, in January 2012, then doesn't appear again until say October 2012, we can put the episode date in the storyline part, or maybe just the month and year (as we tend to do currently), so that the episode dates are at least preserved - though they will be preserved by the references anyway. What do people think? No number of episodes is needed for one episode as it's obvious.

Here's a small example:

I'm not sure I could be bothered to go back and do all the lists, but if we agree I might get around to doing at least 2011 at some point as well as 2012. – anemone projectors – 21:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is a lot of work, a lot of boring work. Im happy for it to go ahead though! — M.Mario  (T/C) 15:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone and done it, and am hoping the bot will fix the broken refs! I've not put in any nowrap templates, as it's quite neat as it is. i might put some in. – anemone projectors – 16:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So because 2012 is the first year I've made sure all storylines are referenced, I'm not going to go back and do this for previous years! But I will make sure it's done for future years... until the day I die. Oh no, who's going to do this when I'm gone and EastEnders is celebrating 300 years on the television!!?!!?? – anemone projectors – 16:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Duration discussion rebooted
So, back in January 2011, we agreed to this - "Years cover a character's duration broadly, with gaps only when an absence exceeds more than a calendar year, for example, a character in the series from 1999 to 2002, then 2003 to 2009 would have the duration 1999–2009" (see WikiProject EastEnders/Manual of style). This would apply even if a character left on 1 January one year and returned on 31 December the next year. However, we have LOTS of articles now that no longer conform to this rule. So we either need to scrap the rule or enforce it. We did agree to discuss individuals if we felt it should be changed, but this rarely happens. The latest one is Tony King, who left in December 2008 and returned in December 2009. The duration was changed from "2008–09" to "2008, 2009" by User:Alex250P today and I reverted it pending this discussion. Other articles this applies to include Amira Masood and Sonia Fowler. My feeling is that although they may not have appeared for a long time, they still appeared between two years, so even if a character takes a 16 year break, we may not need to state one (the BBC certainly didn't in one of their documentaries that I watched within the last year or 18 months). But I don't think anyone will agree to that. So perhaps we should either enforce the rule across all our articles, or change it from "one calendar year" to "365 days". Or something else? Any thoughts? Oh, the previous discussion is here - please take that into consideration as well. And don't forget, durations are ALWAYS mentioned in the lead section of each article, usually with full dates including any departures, temporary or otherwise. – anemone projectors – 18:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously I've never been in favour of this way of the duration, I think it's obstructive to the actual information we're trying to give. Personally, I feel a break (such as a maternity leave) any longer than six months should be documented. An example, if Janine returns in April, she will have been off-screen for seven months, last appearing in September 2012 and returning in April 2013, I believe that her duration should be 2008-12, 2013- ... I know this is an unpopular opinion - but other examples such as Rainie Cross is very obstructive. She appeared once in 2007, 2008, and then 2010 and 2011. She did not appear continuously from 2007-2008, such as the article suggests. Alex250P (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The thing with people like Janine, Dot, Bianca or Tanya where they are taking temporary breaks for periods of about 6 months, the break is contracted and they don't actually leave the cast. For characters like Rainie or recurring characters, they are recurring between their first and last appearance, so I feel that we are ok to combine the years. Saying a break longer than six months should be documented is a bad idea because then if someone returns in the same year they left, we'd have things like "2009-11, 2011-" and we don't want that. – anemone projectors – 11:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If we dont include temporary breaks in the infobox, I think that would be the best idea. That means we wouldnt include breaks like Carols, Tiffany, Bianca, Dot, Ian, Shirley, Tanya, when we know there returning, we should leave the years (unless it is a very substantial amount, which is unlikely). However I do think that when a character is brought into a soap and leaves with their no source to say this is just a temporary break, then the years should be changed if they were returning. For example, Poppy, left in October 2011, and returned in June 2012. I think the dates should be: 2011, 2012-? (apologies for using Poppy as an example...) — M.Mario  (T/C) 13:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree with the temporary absence thing AP, but I do agree with M.Mario as well, and Poppy is a good example, Kim Fox is another, as she appeared in November 2009 I think, and then again from around June/July 2010 - not quite a year but still an extended period. Alex250P (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Screenshots in EastEnders article
I don't know if you are happy to see me. However, now I understand relations between words and files (images, videos, sounds, etc.). (Back then, I could not fully understand how to either keep or delete files.) Before they will be taken to FFD, I was wondering if improvement on the main article and its images are needed.


 * 1)  - Used in more than one article Should stay
 * 2)  - Used in more than one article
 * 3) - Used in more than one article

Whether each image is prominent does not matter. Each image must meet WP:NFCC. In other words, text is not easy to describe what the image shows. Unfortunately, unlike #1, they are replaceable by text; readers may understand what happened when they read the main article very well. "Rape" is already understood; so are "divorce papers" and "assault". To keep these images, ... well, I don't know. However, more words may be needed, but I'm not sure if they help keep an image. Look at The Boys in the Bar and What Is... Cliff Clavin?. They have images that may seem replaceable by text, but clearly more details, like reviews, make these images irreplaceable. --George Ho (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(I've discussed this previously in User talk:Gungadin and User talk:AnemoneProjectors. --George Ho (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC))
 * I object to number 1 & 3, and added to No.1 that the image is used in more than one article. The other images should be deleted. — M.Mario  (T/C) 16:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * #2 & 4 are nominated for deletion. #1 stays, so it is out of the discussion. #3, nonetheless, I might have problems with. To be honest, the caption helped me understand the image, and the text is already understandable. There are already images of Angie Watts and Den Watts. Details of divorce paper scene is already understood when I read words; image is useless with or without words. How is the still image described as prominent? Should I improve the image's rationale for meeting WP:NFCC? --George Ho (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is just such a prominent picture, it's been shown a lot. Im sure I, and WP:EE users would greatly appreciate if you did that. — M.Mario  (T/C) 23:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I've updated File:Den Ange Divorce.jpg; I hope. Otherwise, should I improve the page further? — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs) 10 November 2012, 00:19 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. – anemone projectors – 14:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Relatives in the info box
There needs to be a change in the way that infoboxes work because the 'status quo' clearly is not working. In many EastEnders info boxes, there are a myriad of discrepancies which allows inconsistency and many would prefer the old system whereby it provides a list of all relatives. However, that a backwards change is not going to happen. I propose that we change the info boxes so that it would include all relatives (by that I mean only parents, grandparents, siblings, half-siblings, aunts, uncles and cousins) who have appeared on the show or have been mentioned however distant relatives who share no storyline or are not present in the show at the same time will not be listed (for eg. Pauline Fowler will not be included in Morgan Butcher's family info box or Archie Mitchell will not be included in Courtney Mitchell's infobox). That would be a more consistent way forward, rather than more edit conflicts because we are trying to go through people's backstories and intricate details. I really hope we can agree on that.--86.135.54.101 (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there needs to be a change. WP:WAF-INFO clearly states "For entities within fiction, useful infobox data might include the creators or actors, first appearance, an image, and in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction." This is part of Wikipedia's manual of style. Therefore, we only need to include those relatives who are important to a particular character's storyline (on screen), and perhaps any iconic characters that another character is related to. Relatives who were simply mentioned or who we can assume they knew off-screen but never appeared with on-screen, or even perhaps who appeared in the same scenes though no actual storyline was shared, are unlikely to be essential to that understanding. – anemone projectors – 16:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are reading way too much into Wikipedia's manual of style because it does not prohibit us include all relevant relatives. With the status quo, there is no consistency. Look at the difference between Grant Mitchell and Phil Mitchell's infobox - it does not add up. That is why it is crucial that there is a change which includes all relatives on the infobox, apart from distant relatives unless those distant relatives are relevant to storylines or are in the show together. I also would go one step further and ensure that infoboxes mention the relation that certain relatives have (for eg. on Vicki Fowler's page, it would list that Lou is her great grandmother). Also, by your definition of the word 'iconic' that could be open to different meanings to different people on who is an iconic character or not. It is best that we have consistency which is why this change is very much needed. I'd urge everyone to agree on this.--86.135.54.101 (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not reading too much into it at all. It doesn't prohibit us from including relevant relatives but you want to include irrelevant ones. There is consistency. Both Mitchell brothers list their wives, their parents, their siblings and their offspring, then Phil's includes more further relatives because he's been in EastEnders for more time than Grant and has therefore more relevant relatives. Louise, Roxy, Ronnie, Billy, Jamie, Lexi and Archie are not relevant to Grant, but they are to Phil. The only odd one is Clive, who is such a minor character, he might not be relevant to anyone other than his brothers, since he was only in a single episode and probably had very little, if any, impact. If people want to know who the rest of Grant's family are, they can look at the Mitchell family article. If we start adding more information to the infobox, such as every irrelevant relative and exactly how "other relatives" are related, we will end up with extremely cluttered infoboxes, making it very difficult to know what the relevant information is (the main reason we started removing the non-important relatives). This is all in-universe information, which should always be kept to a minimum, but especially in the infobox. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite. If you want a fansite, you can go on Wikia or one of the other EastEnders wikis, or start your own, exactly how you want it. I do agree that "iconic" is open to interpretation, but perhaps I used the wrong word. But you can't deny that Den Watts is iconic. Dennis Jr clearly isn't. EastEnders on Wikipedia is no different to any other TV show on Wikipedia, so we should not be changing the rules just for one TV show in particular. – anemone projectors – 22:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with AP, if we start listing EVERY single relative connection then the infoboxes will become to big and cluttered... Think of Liam Butcher... he is practically related to EVERYONE in EE at the moment apart from the Masoods... to include all his relatives would be rediculous. I say keep things as they are. Bleaney (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, AP but Wikipedia is open to everyone. It is an encyclopedia, you are right, which is why it should involve all availbale information. Of course there should be limits, Bleaney, but what I am proposing gives limits. What you will have is all the siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents and cousins but not distant relatives unless they are necessary to the storyline. It would not include everyone. Why does Grant and Phil Mitchell's family infoboxes have to be so different? They should be mirrored seen as they are from the same family and are brothers. All my proposal would do is mean that the encyclopedia would be more consistent, rather than hiding information but you would not get entangled by adding too much unecessary information. It is about striking the balance between what is ridiculous which is the huge discrepancy we have now and the excessive which was how the encyclopedia operated previously whereby one character had a hugely cluttered infobox. Also, AP has just hit the nail on the head - what does iconic mean? Surely, by the example of Den Watts, Angie Watts should have Dennis in her infobox or Frank Butcher should have a reference to Scarlett Moon or Carol Jackson should have a reference to Rebecca Miller or even Kathy and Peggy having a reference to Lexi - it is ridiculous because the rules that you are setting are easily fudged. Let's just have one set rule which is fairer and does the key function of the encyclopedia. In addition to that, we need to know what relation certain relatives have to certain characters. No good just putting 'relative' for Billy and Lexi. These are important changes which we need to push through, don't let the status quo hold you back. We should agree on this.--86.135.54.101 (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But the limits you are proposing are way too broad. Example: Melanie Healy married Ian Beale, should that therefore mean that on Lucy Beale's page, Alex Healy should be listed as an uncle? I think not. Oh and just to clarify... Dennis Jr is NOT related to Angie. Dennis Jr is Den's grandson through Dennis, not Sharon, so therefore Angie is no connection to him. Bleaney (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The limits I am proposing are broad enough, your example regarding Melanie Owen is completely false, Alex is not Lucy's uncle. I am talking about blood relatives and adoptive ones, Mel never adopted Lucy and was only her stepmum for a few months! Ridiculous example. Angie is connected to Dennis Jr. because Angie is Sharon's adoptive mother. All I am doing is proposing something quite simple, which is to include all relatives (stepparents only mentioned if they are necessary) apart from those who are too distant who have not shared a storyline or appeared on the show at the same time. That is very reasonable and supportable, and 'relatives' should be listed so readers can tell how people are related. Makes no sense to oppose it.
 * Correct - Angie and Dennis (either one) are in no way related. Also, I'm not saying that Frank should mention Scarlett, or Carol should mention Chloe (or Rebecca, actually), or Kathy and Peggy should mention Lexi - but if Frank, Carol, Kathy and Peggy are "iconic" character, then Scarlett, Rebecca and Lexi might mention them. You got that the wrong way around. I don't really like this idea because Kathy and Peggy have absolutely nothing to do with Lexi, but I'm just remembering a discussion a few years ago involving Buffy Summers. – anemone projectors – 10:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Angie is Dennis' adoptive grandmother. What you have just done expose the loopholes in the status quo (yes, I got that one wrong). Kathy may have little to do with Lexi at the moment (rumour has it that Gillian Taylforth could return, but that's irrelevant) but she is still Lexi's grandmother and she is her family. You could use the same argument towards Dennis Rickman Jr. and Dennis Rickman, seeing as Dennis will never know his dad but he is his family. My proposal provides clarity, I'll give you an example under my proposals:

Liam Butcher Father: Ricky Butcher Mother: Bianca Jackson Sisters: Tiffany Butcher, Natasha Butcher Half brother: Morgan Butcher Half sisters: Kira, Whitney Dean (adoptive) Grandfathers: Frank Butcher, David Wicks Grandmothers: Carol Jackson, June Butcher Uncles: Robbie Jackson, Billie Jackson, Danny Butcher Aunts: Sonia Fowler, Janine Butcher, Diane Butcher, Clare Butcher Cousins: Rebecca Fowler, Jacques Butcher, Scarlett Moon Relatives: Pat Evans (great grandmother), Lydia Simmonds (great grandmother), Norman Simmonds (great uncle), Jim Branning (great grandfather), Max Branning (great uncle), Jack Branning (great uncle), Derek Branning (great uncle), Ian Beale (great uncle) - the last three are relevant All I say, let's pilot this and see how things go, but it providers a way forward even Bleaney was confused about who to add and who not to add.--86.135.54.101 (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Dennis Sr is mentioned for Dennis Jr because we felt that direct relatives (parents, siblings, children) are important whether they appeared or not. Perhaps this is wrong and we should start removing them too. But for sure, Angie is nothing to do with Dennis Jr. You don't even adopt grandchildren, let alone the fact they've not appeared together or met. We're not going to "pilot" something without consensus. You seem to be the only person who wants this. – anemone projectors – 09:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I agree that siblings and parents should feature which is why it should be extended to grandparents, aunties, uncles and cousins. What you fail to realise, because you are so closed minded, is that under what happens currently you can have two siblings with very different infoboxes and you descend into arguments about when relatives arrived - whereas what I am proposing has a clearer rule. As for your comment about Angie, I mean it is completely stupid. You can have adoptive grandchildren - it could be the child of your adopted child or that child of your adopted child or even the adopted child of your adopted child. Just look at Wikipedia articles, Margaret Wilson and Rebecca Miller (or Fowler). Or even Whitney Dean and Carol Jackson. The reason why you do not want this is because you are personally targeting me, rather than reviewing a legitimate proposal from another editor because you are deliberately blinding yourself to a fault in the current system which can be rectified under this proposal. I will continue to urge for this to be piloted, and I hope you will relent, especially seeing as it is Christmas!--86.135.54.101 (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * While I agree that clogging up the Info Box with irrelevant relatives is wrong, here are enough anon editors out there that insist on editing them back in that it causes a relatively common problem. There's nothing really to indicate, when the page is edited, that the anon editor should not add relatives. Perhaps there should be a complete family field which points at (for example) Watts family? I think that would be a good compromise Stephenb (Talk) 12:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your comment, but the problem is that editors can revert the rule which is why I am proposing for all relatives to be listed apart from some who are too distant, which keeps some of the best features of the current system and the best features of the old system. Ideally, I want to revert to the old system but that will have no consensus and will clog up infoboxes. I would be prepared to support your complete family field but could I have an example of how it would work.--86.135.54.101 (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave an example - if Den Jr had a complete family field that linked to Watts family then readers of the encyclopaedia could find the whole extended family without all of them being in the infobox. Stephenb (Talk) 08:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, unlike some here I am a 'grown up' and I want consensus. Great we can find common ground that changes could be necessary, so I will back having an extended family field as something that can work. Two editors support that proposal, will others follow.--86.184.70.92 (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, rumour has it that Gillian Taylforth could return... KATHY IS DEAD!!!! I actually would like an even stricter rule - only characters/relatives who have actually been in a scene with each other should be listed, but I work with consensus (unlike some on here who just want to push through what they want without consulting others). Bleaney (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unlike you I know what I am talking about, perhaps you should actually read the Kathy Beale and Gillian Taylforth articles, before laughing. I am glad that you accept that your own proposal would not work, but I am lobbying for a change and I will keep on going - like it or not. You should support it, considering you did not understand the current rules!--86.135.54.101 (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ...Yeah, and your 'lobbying' has gained so much support...Bleaney (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not yet, because only two editors who are extremely bloody-minded and stubborn are being roadblocks, but there seems to be room for compromise with other editors and through there would could see consensus happen soon. You are someone who clearly does not watch too much EastEnders, you did not know about the rumours regarding Kathy, you do not understand the current system and you completely failed to understand my proposal, so your opposition is invalid in my view - you are opposing something you have no understanding about.--86.135.54.101 (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip fansite. I dont work with rumours, I work with verifiable sourcable facts. I really dont care what your opinion of me is, I care about Wikipedia. Why dont you try and stop dismissing other peoples views on this by simply declaring that you know best or that your understanding of EastEnders is far superior to mine or others, and actually come up with some sources for this stuff your espousing? And also, try and find some other wiki editors who actually agree with your changes...You have failed on both counts thus far. Bleaney (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So Diederick Santer and Gillian Taylforth are not sourcable? Get real! I mean you seem to have this suspiciously close and disruptive obsession with concurring with everything that AP says, which is rather significant seeing as you completely failed to understand the changes that I was proposing! I have come to a compromise, so perhaps you can pull your dummy out of your mouth and behave cordially to others. I do 'know best' compared to you and I will not hesitate to say that.--86.184.70.92 (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Give us that source then. Santer is not the EE producer at the moment anyway.... Stephenb (Talk) 08:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, read Kathy Beale and Gillian Taylforth articles. It might be beneficial for you to do so.--86.169.235.148 (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not just two editors, too, it's at least three members of the Wiki EE project who agree - you are simply being disruptive. Firstly, rumours have no place on Wikipedia full stop.  Secondly, having seen your recent edits, how can Angie be Den Jr's adoptive grandmother when she died before he was born?  This is ridiculous and its addition is bordering vandalism.  Merry Christmas to all. Stephenb (Talk) 08:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I happen to back your conpromise Stephen, so don't shoot my down. I am being determined as well as constructive. Now you said that my eidts where ridiculous and borderline vandalism. Only an idiot could have such a deficit of logic. Just because she is dead, it does not mean she is not his grandparent. Den Watts died before Denny was born, he is rightly still mentioned in his infobox. Dennis Snr died before Denny was born, stil mentioned in his infobox. Albert Beale died before Ian, Michelle, Mark and Martin were born, mentioned in their infoboxes. I could go on and on. Adoptive grandparents work. Carol Jackson is Whitney's adoptive grandmother. Margaret Wilson is Rebecca Fowler's. Also, Angie is an iconic character so she should be mentioned. I mean, what is wrong with you?--86.184.70.92 (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling me an idiot is not very civil. Here, we work with consensus,. Please work with the members of the WP:EE project to build a consensus for your view; at the moment, there's only you with this opinion. "What's wrong with me" is *extremely* insulting and I might ask for you to be blocked if you carry on in this fashion. Stephenb (Talk) 08:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * By saying that I called you an idiot means that you are admitting to having a deficit of logic. I have presented not just and opinion, but a proposal. I have said that I would compromise and support having a family guide, if we cannot get an agreement. That is building consensus. To be honest with you, I do sense hypocrisy because saying that completely valid edits which stick with what has been said that we can include iconic characters in the infobox, and personally attacking me seems to me not to be very civil. Please get down from your 'high horse' and let us push forward with the reform, that we have agreed.--86.169.235.148 (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not admit to a "deficit of logic". You are not building consensus by making changes to articles before discussion; consensus is achieved through getting others to agree with you not making changes and getting into disagreements. I have not personally attacked you at all, I am not on a "high horse", and I have not agreed to any reform (I have noted since the above discussions that there is already an adequate family field to be used). Having seen some of your recent edits I would also add that I have also been watching EE since the beginning, but this has nothing to do with what information appears in infoboxes. I am with the prevailing consensus that we should not add relatives to characters' infoboxes unless there has been meaningful interaction or they are directly blood-related (i.e. parent and child), as the rest of their familial tree can be followed either through the family articles or through those characters that are linked. Stephenb (Talk) 14:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Replying to specific comments as I read through... Firsty, nobody is targeting anybody. That's just a ridiculous claim. Margaret cared for Rebecca and they had a very close relationship - the same goes for Carol and Whitney. This never happened for Angie and Dennis Jr, so there's no need to mention them. There is a field for family that points to family articles such as Watts family, so no family member will be excluded. We are working on a list of families so that all the families can be included. I'm not sure I like the idea of changing it from "Family" to "Complete family" or whatever. Am I right to assume that the changing IP address is the same user? You are rather rude when you say things like "unlike some here I am a 'grown up'", "Unlike you I know what I am talking about", "pull your dummy out of your mouth", "Only an idiot could have such a deficit of logic". Nobody is attacking you - you are personally attacking others. You want consensus, but you want it your way. You're highly unlikely to get that because you're the only one who wants it. As for rumours - Wikipedia does not deal in rumours, so if Kathy is returning, we will wait for an announcement and will ignore such unlikely "rumours". Diederick Santer hasn't been the executive producer for several years - there have been two since! If Albert Beale is mentioned in so many infoboxes, we should consider removing him. Please continue to bring more examples to us so we can continue to remove irrelevant relatives! So I will ask you to please stop trying to force your changes on the articles, as you are the only person who wants them. There is no consensus to do so, and if you continue to edit articles without consensus, you could be blocked. – anemone projectors – 17:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not the same user, otherwise it would say so. I happen to strongly agree with the other user, so in fact two editors agree with this change. Again, I urge you to get your facts right. The fact is, you failed to scrutinise this proposal and discuss merits and flaws, instead you rushed into two attack the users which support this change. Also, you have contradicted yourself. This is what you said:

"Therefore, we only need to include those relatives who are important to a particular character's storyline (on screen), and perhaps any iconic characters that another character is related to. Relatives who were simply mentioned or who we can assume they knew off-screen but never appeared with on-screen, or even perhaps who appeared in the same scenes though no actual storyline was shared, are unlikely to be essential to that understanding." Now Den Watts is not the only iconic character. Frank Butcher is iconic, Grant Mitchell is iconic, Kathy Beale is iconic, Angie Watts is iconic. They are just a few examples, as for you reverting my changes, I am in fact operating under what you proposed, so I do not see what the argument is. In fact, I think the idea of using 'iconic characters' is a very good one. So I will continue to make these changes because you have in effect supported them. Carol did not really care for Whitney, they are just friends. By the time Carol was truly back in the Jackson family, Whitney was an adult. How long have you been watching the show otherwise you'd pick up on this? Angie adopted Sharon when she was 3 and died in Sharon's arms. Angie is probably one of EastEnders' most iconic characters, therefore she should be mentioned on the infoboxes of her relatives. It is very sad you do not seem to understand this, but instead you enjoy targeting people who have superior knowledge about EastEnders, that you. Very sad to be honest.--86.169.235.148 (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Still no consensus though. Two people agreeing does not mean we should all rush to go along with you. I haven't attacked you, you have launched personal attacks at those who oppose you. I did say that, but note the word perhaps that I used. I said that because it was not discussed. It is still not discussed, and now I believe it is too difficult to define, so we should not list such characters. Also, if you're going to go along with the "iconic" comment, I made, you surely must agree to the rest that you quoted. I may have proposed something, but now I am un-proposing it, and as there was no consensus to change anything, I am right to revert you. I did not try to force this on articles or go against consensus like you are doing. Oh look, another personal attack. – anemone projectors – 18:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Also. I don't believe that  and  are different people, based on the editing patterns and Whois. Why would one person reply to something aimed at somebody else? – anemone  projectors – 18:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Because they agree with each other. I doubt they are the same person. Bleaney has responded to comments directed at you and to be fair, you did say it has to be 3 users to agree a change and 3 users have agreed a change.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, both proposals are rubbish and allow inconsistency and both of you are squabbling like children over something minor. I think we should revert to the old system before User:AnemoneProjectors confused things with his changes. I want to know who the second cousins, first cousins-once-removed, great aunts and uncles are etc, not this minimalist attitude. Many Wikipedia users, liked the previous system because it was properly encyclopedic and gave real detail. We knew who all the relatives were and exactly how characters were related, unlike the rubbish we have now. Anyway, surely the family infobox should also include current partners, not just spouses. The EastEnders website do it, and this site has done it for Chryed who never got married. Surely, we should be doing it for straight couples too.--212.97.83.228 (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support that compromise.--86.183.195.212 (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * AngieWattsFan/86.183.195.212/etc, If you're going to create an account, please use it! I did not say it has to be three users. That does not make a consensus, especially when other users are not agreeing. There is so far no consensus to change anything. And Bleaney may have replied to things aimed at me, but not as if he is me, like you have done on your muliple IPs, and now your user account. You clearly have very little, if any, knowledge of Wikipedia policies and principles. I did not confuse things with my changes. They were not my changes - they were built by consensus by several users. If you want to know detailed, trivial information, go to a fan site, not here. We don't include non-married relationships because there isn't a field for this, and if you want this you'll have to propose it to WP:SOAPS so good luck with that! – anemone projectors – 21:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also by trying to make changes to the way we use the template in EastEnders articles, you're also trying to change how it is used in all articles that use it, and also the sister template Infobox soap character. That template's documentation states "Relations need only be noted if the relationship holds some notable significance for the character in question." You're never going to gain consensus for that. – anemone projectors – 21:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know you are not particularly bright but this site does include non-married relationships, such as Chryed (and rightly so). This site does rightly include trivial information (actually quite useful information) seeing as it part of being an encyclopedia and yes, fans do matte because they actually watch the show unlike some. Why do you think the BBC EastEnders website has links to Wikipedia pages of its characters. You are utterly hopeless.--86.183.195.212 (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Multiple IPs? Accounts? You are completely thick in the head. You said that because I have replied to comments that others have made directed at others, that makes me that person and now because there is a consensus from new users and others, you are throwing the dummy out of the pram! Boo-hoo! If you have not been reading there has been disagreements between users wanting change, but you are clearly too dumb to notice.--86.183.195.212 (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No there is not a consensus to change the previous consensus. Again, you are showing no knowledge of Wikiedpia's policies, guidelines and principles. I suggest you go and read them all. This is not a fan site. There are plenty of EastEnders fan sites out there, including Wikis, so you're free to edit those to your heart's content. Christian and Syed are not married but they are in a civil partnership, which is why a civil partnership field was added to the template. We don't go around including other long-term non-legally-joined relationships. Trivial information should be removed because it's trivial, it's only of interest to fans, and this is not a fan site. We don't control what the BBC links to - if they want to link to a well-respected encyclopaedia, that's up to them. That doesn't mean we should go changing our rules. – anemone projectors – 19:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are incompetent, and should not be editing for this well-respected encyclopedia. You have failed at basic counting and you have been proved wrong on the facts. The fact is a reasonable reform has been suggested, and there are some conflicting views. Many users have come on and agreed with it, rather than just two users (one who did not actually know what the reform entails) and you rudely dismissed it out of hand rather than considering costs and benefits. Just because I am a fan of EastEnders, does not mean I cannot edit on Wikipedia and leave people who clearly have no clear grasp of the facts. It is very disappointing that you think you have the divine right to run WT:EE when you clearly do not know who is related to who - family being an important part of EastEnders. I suggest you waste your time on another project.--86.183.195.212 (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is clearly going nowhere. Fact is, there is no consensus to change, and no reason to go against Wikipedia's well-established policies, guidelines and manual of style. – anemone projectors – 11:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, no consensus for change has been found. Bleaney (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think immediate family - children, parents, siblings and spouses should always be included whatever the weather. That is just basic stuff. What you would expect. I do not think it is needed for long lists of relatives when they are not important. My only concern has ever been that keeping up to date with character being added - who shouldn't be added per the consensus - might be time consuming and hard to manage. But this has long been in place now. It has actually been well managed so if it ain't broke, don't fix it.22:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintheone (talk • contribs)
 * Also agreed Stephenb (Talk) 14:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It should only really be immediate family - people who are related but the character isn't going to have a scene with shouldn't be included. If we included absolutely everyone then the Branning and Beale family infoboxes would start to get out of control.--5 albert square (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)