Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject EastEnders to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 06:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

YouTube

The official EastEnders channel on YouTube currently has 295 clips uploaded. I'm wondering if we should include them as external links in the relevant articles, thought 295 is a lot... I just feel we should do something with them! Any ideas? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, whi not, they can be used for references too I suppose.GunGagdinMoan 15:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess this should be my next project then. When I'm able to use internet at home rather than in the library, I'll make a list in my userspace of all the videos and the characters in them. Then we can go from there. Unless someone else wants to do it, but it's gonna be very boring! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I dont think I'll have time, but I suppose we can just add as and when if we like, no need to devote loads of time to it specifically if you dont want to.GunGagdinMoan 16:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll do it once I'm free to and not stuck in the library. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Storyline articles?

Can I just get peoples thoughts on what storylines should qualify as having their own articles. Pre-existing examples include Sharongate and Get Johnny Week. I'm asking because I'm coming towards the end of the Watts material - having almost finished the family page (just need to add a few references I have still) and, after discussion with AnemoneProjectors, polishing up the Chrissie Watts article which should be completed by the end of this week. RE the issue of storylines, I was about to move onto a Butcher family page, but have thought it may be better to put together articles on the "Shannis" storyline and Den's death storyline given that the material is still very fresh in my mind. The Den's death storyline in particular I feel could do with its own article as it was rather convuluted, went on for almost a year, and had some very important implications for the show, coming at a time of perceived ratings decline, the departure of major characters, etc., etc. There is a lot of stuff there. But I know there is a bit of uncertainity regarding articles devoted to storylines, because they end up just rehashing so much plot.Familiae Watts (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just spotted this discssion. We previously had a Shannis article but I think it was deleted by AFD. I think a storyline needs to be especially... can't think of the word... but I think most of the time it's better to cover that kind of thing in character articles. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps te word you are searching for is "notable" or something to that effect? :) Personally, Den's death I believe is a very notable storyline.... certainly alot more notable than Get Johhny Week or The Secret Mitchell.... I mean, I honestly do not know how that qualifies as a notable storyline, as it affected a single group of characters and one family; its impact limited solely to the character of Ronnie (maybe Archie also) and not felt outside the Mitchell family. If I were to argue for Den's death, by contrast, the event affected numerous characters and at least 3 families (Watts, Mitchells, Slaters). I can, of course, put it in the Den article, but things may start to get a little lop-sided, as I've got quite a few sources and a really interesting interview with Leslie Grantham about the storyline. I understand that not every storyline can and should have its own article - but then having an article devoted to The Secret Mitchell (which also occupies a large section on Ronnie Mitchells page too to my recolection) does not exactly follow a policy of selectivity. Nor for that matter having on on Get Johnny Week - again, a rather limiting storyline, which as far as I can see, is just a plot summary as far as the article goes. Sorry if I'm sounding tetchy - didn't get much sleep - I am all for keeping storyline articles to a minimum and only for especially notable storylines, but then that should be enforced; only Sharongate and Who Shot Phil qualify for that imo of the existing articles (although I understand why the Fowlers in Ireland is there).Familiae Watts (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, let's see what some other people think. I was always opposed to The Secret Mitchell and argued for it to be redirected to Danielle's page, as she was the secret Mitchell and it was all about her. Get Johnny Week passed a recent AFD. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of tons of storyline articles, I just like to cover the ones with mass cultural impact etc. Yes Get Johnny Week doesnt fall into this category, but it was not constructed by anyone on the wikiproject, we just worked to improve the plot that was there at AFD. I was opposed to the secret mitchell because it was just a direct copy of the Daniella aticle and majority of the wikiproject voted delete but it was still saved. We could try to make our own criteria for storyline pages, but per wiki rules, there would be nothing to suggest that any storyline going couldnt have its own page, so long as it's sourced and written in an OOU style. So, our wikiproject rules wouldnt have much of a leg to stand on when faced with blanket policy at AFD.
For me it's more important to create fantastic character pages, so if you have loads of stuff on Den's second demise, it would be great if you could include it in his development as a first port of call. But if you are passionate about this storyline and you're willing to put the work into it, then by all means feel free to go ahead.--GunGagdinMoan 15:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I certainly do not want to create a page that the Project does not believe in. I think a decision needs to be made about whether the EE Project supports storyline articles; and then if so, what type of articles. i actually believe that a criteria would be useful - yes, it dosn't stop anyone from creating an article, but if that article does not met the EE Project criteria then perhaps it should not then be supported by the project team (for instance, when the question of deletion comes up). I will leave the issue on Den's second demise upon a little longer so others have time to voice their opinion. As it is I am trying to update and fix the Dennis Rickman article atm, so no hurry. On that subject - if anyone can find some sources for Mr Rickman I'd appreciate it. I've done some standard searches but have to literally wade through page after page of "Dennis Rickman topless" links and fan pages about how dishy Dennis is!!!!!!!!!!! As it stands I only have about half-a-dozen.Familiae Watts (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Family articles

I have just created a separate section here to deal with developing the family pages. For instance, as I plan to move on to the Butchers next, does anyone have any pertinent sources and references - perhaps they could be listed here??? Familiae Watts (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer the existing Beale family, Branning family and Mitchell family articles to be improved before a new article is created, as neither of those feature any real-world information. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
hmmmm.... ok, I can do the Brannings; but it will be a cold, cold day in hell before I can muster enough interest to be able to do the Mitchells - someone else will have to do them I'm afraid. :)Familiae Watts (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I guess the Brannings one is easier to do. You can still do the Butchers instead if you want. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Definately.... certainly the Beale-Fowler one is a mammoth task, which I think will take a very long time to do justice to. The Mitchells wouldn't be too difficult, as for most of their time they have numbered basically 4 (not including Billy - or the add-ons, like Tiffany or Lisa). But I just do not much like the family or the characters.... I can probably help with the earlier era, from 91 to about the time Grant left, but that will also be the most unsourced period. But I really just don't like the characters and so would not do the article justice at all - except in the criticism section! ;). But I will do the Brannings, then move onto the Moons and Slaters and Butchers.Familiae Watts (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The articles could do with sources, perhaps taken from individual character pages. They could include a 'Reception' including how the family is perceived etc. if there are any sources about the family. I created a Hollyoaks article about the McQueen family which includes their Reception. W93 (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I was going to model the pages on the format I ended up doing for the Watts family article. So, if the sources and info are available, a "creation/development" section; something about the "family dynamic"; then any major themes of the family - so for the Watts it was "The Watts and the Vic", "The Watts verses the Mitchells"; a section about the interaction of the family with other EE families; and finally a reception section. But it all depends on the availability of info and sources.Familiae Watts (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to crystalise my personal attitude regarding these family pages: I see no point in using them to rehash plot or repeat information on character pages. Obviously some information will be repeated, but I think it is better to use these pages as an opportunity to present an appreciation of how the characters operate as a family..... in a sense, look at the family as a "character". So for something like the Slaters I'd imagine there'd be alot of exploration of them being a female family, how this affected their relationship to each other and others; them being sisters, i'd also pay a lot of attention to Mo and Charlie given that they are the one continuous link of the family; etc.Familiae Watts (talk) 09:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I honestly think the majority of family articles don't need to be created, as most of the time the family members have separate storylines away from their relatives, such as Janine and Ricky. Or with the Brannings/Jacksons, Bianca has very little to do with Max and Jack. And all the characters have their own articles. Remember that our best family article is the one I created, the Ferreira family, and I did it because all the characters were stubs, they were criticised as a family unit and the majority of their storylines were as a family. The Masoods have been criticised and praised as a family but I put that information into each separate article. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying....very much so. And I agree that same families are very fractured; the Butchers being a good example of that. The Brannings-Jacksons are too; unless you separate the two families (as I personally think they should be) then as just "Jacksons" or "Brannings" they become alot more closely integrated families. To me, EE has always been a show about families, which is why I think the families are so important. Were this Corrie or EM I'd agree without much rservation. Additionally, family articles can serve practical purposes. The Massood example you give seems to me to demonstrate that alot of information is being repeated which could, being put onto just relevant page, save space and time. More so, as I see it, the family pages are about synthesising diverse information. FOr example, the Watts and the Queen Vic pub. On the Sharon article and the Den article, it is, of course, noted about the importance of the pub to the individual characters, but then the information can be brought together, in conjunction with information from the Angie and Chrissie pages, to re-contextualise the information and present the pub as being important to the family; similarly, the feuding with the Mitchells.... Den dislike of Phil; Peggy abd Sharon's run-ins; Dennis vs Grant/Phil; Chrissie vs them all (!!!) can all be brought together on a single page to explain the "feud" - which is referenced on-screen. As individual entries on separate character pages, this layer of meaning is absent imo. Your Ferreria article is different because, as you noted, that functions as an article for the characters as well. Apart from anything else, I created the Watts family page in response to the front page of this projct which listed family pages that needed to be created. If, it is felt that family pages are not necesssary, then perhaps that section should be removed.Familiae Watts (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto what I said in the thread above.GunGagdinMoan 15:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

NEW IDEA: perhaps we can merge my notion of having a "character" page for families, with what AP did for the Ferreria family. I was just thinking about the Slaters here, for example.... we could have a Slater family article, which would feature the character pages for Charlie (his page is not good) and then link to those members of the family that have their own pages (like Kat), plus adding some material about the workings of the family as a whole. In other words, envisaging a Slater family page to look like this: introduction to Slater family; links to independent character pages for certain mmembers (Kat, Little Mo, etc); then present Charlie Slater's character; perbhaps do same for Mo; then some facts about family dynamic (all female, etc.). Of course, problem with this is that we would have to determine who does and does not warrant an independent character page. Some families, like Watts, all have separate character pages and none of them deserve not to. But with families like the Mitchells it could include character bios/pages for minor re-occuring characters like Aunt Sal perhaps?? This may also help to remove a criticism of soap projects at Wiki (ie: that everything including kitchen sink gets its own article). I mean figures like Aunt Sal probably don't deserve tneir own separate page - but neither to be hid away in a list page. Perhaps this is the 1/2 way point??? Just a proposition.Familiae Watts (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Storylines

I know we try to keep storylines to a minimum but sometimes when a storyline is current it's difficult to know what is important and what isn't. So recently I've taken to summarising episodes as they are aired and then updating the articles concerned when I get online. This way, the articles can be cut down when people feel the need. I'd prefer to do it that way than miss something out, as sometimes storyline sections don't get updated for weeks. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Past/present tense in character articles

I recall reading in one of the guides somewhere that the present tense should be used in OOU sections for character articles when describing the character in question. Is this so even when the character is deceased. Again I recall reading that it should because the tv always exists in real-time - or something like that. So, the article for Dennis begins "Dennis Rickman is a character".... yet the article for Den goes "Den Watts was a character".

Which is the tense to use in relation to characters who are dead or no longer in the show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Familiae Watts (talk • contribs) 11:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The tense should always be present, so 'Den Watts is a fictional character from the BBC soap opera EastEnders', because referring to a deceased or departed character in the past tense gives the article an in-universe slant. From a real-world perspective, they don't cease being fictional characters because they're no longer on screen :) Frickative 11:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - that's what I thought but wanted to check before i made any changes. :)Familiae Watts (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
All the pages should say "is a fictional..." because I made sure of it and edited every page. But people do change them if they don't know the guidelines. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Step parents

Should step family tages be added to the character info box? I'm thinking in particular of characters like Jane beale (but over the years it would also have affected characters like Pat, Dot, Laura, Chrissie, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Familiae Watts (talk • contribs) 12:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would get out of hand with people adding everyone's step family when it's not needed. Some family parts in infoboxes are too long as it is. I personally don't think we should, but other people might have other ideas. Also, can you sign your posts on talk pages with four of these: ~ thanks! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it could well get too long (and that some are too long as is); perhaps it could just be limited too step mother/father - as they are usually the important figures to reference, rather than including steps sisters, brothers, etc. Also include step children. For instance, I think it is important that Jane Beale info box have her step children, but not that Peter Beale have Christian Clark listed as his step brother. :) (Sorry about signing posts - I keep forgetting, but am trying to remember!)Familiae Watts (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, maybe just step parents and step children but nobody else. It'll be like adoptive children and parents, which we do include. But we should try not to include them where it's not necessary, such as listing Roy Evans as a step father for Pat's sons, as he had nothing to do with them. I don't refer to my mum's husband as my step father because they've only been married about 3 years and I'm in my 30s. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you think that not including family where there's no real link is something should be applied to the existing parameters? Because I would say that there's certainly a better argument for including immediate step-family than 3rd great grand uncles four times removed/some of the other tenuous parameters presently accounted for in the infobox, haha. Frickative 14:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
That's something else I've been thinking recently. Maybe we could do stuff like that where the family box is huge but not necessarily where it's small. Like SJ Fletcher lists some third cousin she once mentioned, but she has nobody else. But Bianca Jackson, for example... But then again, we said that because it's hidden it didn't really matter. I'd like to hear from Gungadin on this one. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree, AP that it needs to be pertinent to character - the example you give is a good one. Having said that, the character in question should not have to necessarily refer to the "step" figure as "step mother" or "father", so long as there is an important relationship. For instance, Dennis or Sharon never called Chrissie "step mum", but the 3 spent alot of time together when on-screen because of their family association, which would be, imo, reflected in the tag of step relations. Similarly, Lucy and Peter don't call Jane their step mum, but there is obviously a strong association reflected in the familial connection (even if it is not formall put into words). Also we could just have tags as "step parents" and "step children" if need be, that would sort of head off any desire to go into brothers, sisters, cousins, etc., etc. But I agree that some of the family box tags are suceptible to tenuous use. ;)Familiae Watts (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This Tfd for the Coronation Street character infobox is probably pertinent to discussion, so I'll just drop the link here :) Frickative 15:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with just step parents and step children, if you got into step second cousins eight times removed then it would obviously be confusing, however in the case of Lucy Beale she has had three step-mothers? So would we list them all or the current one, Jane Alex250P (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

For now, let's just worry about stepfamily then and just add stepparents and stepchildren. Note that they are one-word terms, stepmother, stepfather, stepson, stepdaughter. We can leave distant relatives for a later discussion. As for Lucy and Peter, yes I suppose all three should be added, but like spouses, would we then add durations? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think including the durations would be proper.Familiae Watt§ (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Shall I go ahead and add fields for "stepmothers", "stepfathers", "stepsons" and "stepdaughters"? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. I really think it is a pertinent field.Familiae Watt§ (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I've done that now, so you can add "stepmothers", "stepfathers", "stepsons" and "stepdaughters" to any that you feel need them. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Added the fields to Jane Beale, as she was really the one that got me thinking of the need in the first place. Will add to the Watts also.Familiae Watt§ (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Do we want to add durations as well, as we do for spouses? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
It's a little tricky.... when I suggested the step relations I had in mind primarily Jane Beale and Chrissie Watts - both of whom are "open-ended" stepmothers - Jane, because she hasn't divorced Ian (yet); and Chrissie because Den never divorced her so she effectively remains stepmother perpetually. I think for characters like the poor Beale children who've had multiple mothers, it would be good to add durations - otherwise those not familiar may think Lucy and Peter are being raised by Lesbian mothers or that Ian is a polygamist!!Familiae Watt§ (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we should probably do it for stepparents but not stepchildren. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor characters (revisited)

I'd like to revisit the discussion above on the notability of minor characters and not knowing when a character becomes major. Someone suggested changing the lists of minor characters by year to just lists of characters by year. I've been thinking about this and I think I really like the idea now. I've done an example of what the 2009 article would look like - User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders characters (2009) - and as you can see, it's not that different as there haven't been that many new main characters this year. Some years will obviously have more than others, but I don't think that would matter. I would also look into taking out some sections for characters with very short bios and move them into "others", as I have done for three characters in my example (Les Finnis, Sarah McCrae and Elaine Speight). What do people think? If consensus agrees with me, I'd set up all the pages in my userspace first so that they're all ready at the same time and then I'd go ahead and make all the necessary changes in one go. What do you think? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections. Probably a good idea to try and centralise as much as possible. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I like it. I'd suggest with the major characters, as well as wikilinking the main article, it would be good to include a summary roughly akin to a fully developed lead section, giving a summary style overview of the character. The 2009 one you've made up has a wealth of sources, but a lot of them are somewhat lacking, so it would be a good way of injecting references and a bit of real-world info into weaker articles. It would also help getting proper lead sections written for the main articles, because most of them are only a few sentences long. Frickative 21:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if that's necessary but won't object if it happens. Though on second thoughts it might be a very good idea because anyone looking at the list would get a bit of background and we would be able to say that they're a long running character who appeared for 20 years, for example. Obviously there would be no infobox for those ones on the list pages, and I wonder if some of the others don't need their infobox either, such as Pearl Rogers and others with only a short bit of text. The other thing is that all the pages need copyediting, which is a very long job. I did say I would do it this year! It would also mean we can merge in major characters with very short articles, like Alex Healy, for example.AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The best example is probably Characters of Smallville, which is the only relevant GA for a TV series, although obviously has fewer characters. The main character summaries there only cover plot details which I personally dislike, but it did get to GA so someone must agree with it, lol. It's also the only other article besides the EastEnders ones I've seen that lists the minor 'Other characters', which is cool. If you want a hand copy editing just shout, I don't mind divvying the articles up & quite enjoy that sort of thing :) Frickative 21:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I'll sort out the actual articles before copyediting, though I did start on the first three sections of 2009! For now I'll just do empty sections for characters with their own articles as well. The hard thing is going to be finding out which characters started in a particular year because we have them listed by departure and in alphabetical order, but not by when they joined! But I think it won't be that difficult to just do the basic lists without cleanup, etc, but if I'll be sure to give you a shout if need be! Especially tomorrow, at about 3pm :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Hope everyone had a very good Christmas (or not if you're not into that!) I started work on a few of the articles in my userspace but just wanted to see what people think the articles should be named. I went for "List of EastEnders characters (####)" based on the current titles and just removing the word "minor" but it doesn't match the article List of characters from EastEnders. The current List of minor EastEnders characters will also have to redirect somewhere, and my next question is: should we create a "list of lists"/disambiguation page like that one with a different name such as "List of EastEnders characters by year" and then link to that on the current character list article, or something else? And my third question relates to infoboxes. On a few of the pages I've put in my userspace, I commented out the infobox where the character only had the most basic information, and made sure it was mentioned in the prose. I think it's better for those with not a lot of prose to help reduce whitespace. Does everyone agree with that idea? See User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders characters if you want examples. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I just did a basic 1985 article in my userspace but I reckon with Frickative's idea of giving each character at least some informaiton, we could get the 1985 list to Featured List status as the lead section has huge potential to be expanded. Thoughts on that (as well as the above, which you probably all missed because of Christmas and stuff) would be appreciated. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I think it's a good idea, because I suppose it means that we can merge any characters that havent met notability guidelines, although perhaps caution with that if they have potential to meet the guidelines, otherwise the images will likely be deleted. so am in favour.GunGagdinMoan 19:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth Anemone, I think that this is a really good idea --5 albert square (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. As for images, as long as the links are only commented out (which bots generally do when a file is deleted) then if need be, I can undelete them in future. Any thoughts though on what to actually name the articles (which I asked about above)? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I held off on replying to this sooner because I was deliberating over the naming thing, but I think your suggestion of 'List of EastEnders characters (XXXX)' is good. I was on the fence because there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus in this area, so for instance there's a List of Naruto characters at WP:FL, but similar articles like Characters of Smallville and Characters of Carnivale at WP:GA. I think the 'Characters of...' articles are expected to be a bit more comprehensive though, going into an overview of casting for the series in general, etc, which would result in a heck of a lot of duplicated information wrt the multiple EastEnders character articles. 'List of characters from EastEnders' could easily be renamed 'List of EastEnders characters' if you're concerned about them matching. I also wasn't sure about the list of lists disambig suggestion, because I would think a modification of the 'EEminor' template would be enough for navigation, but it seems that List of minor EastEnders characters gets a fair few hits [1] so it must be useful, in which case I'd say go for it. Removing unnecessary iboxes is good too. Frickative 21:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
We could go with 'List of characters from EastEnders (XXXX)' to match the current list. I'd rather not rename the current list of characters because it's well established. The {{EEminor}} template will just change to characters by year, and the {{EastEnders characters}} will have to be changed as well. But now that we have that, is EEminor really necessary? If the EastEnders characters template is changed from 'minor characters' to 'characters by year' we'll not have a place for the other articles with minor characters in, like the Flaherty family, members of The Banned and Dickens Hill inmates, but we could still do an 'other characters' part on the template as well if you like. So for List of minor EastEnders characters, should it be changed to Lists of EastEnders characters? I think that's quite good and can include links to the present and past characters lists as well. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Totally personal preference, but I think 'List of characters from...' sounds a bit clumsier than 'List of EE characters'... but given that its your pet project, I'm quite happy to defer to what you think is best :) Good point about the templates, EEminor would just be duplicating links needlessly, so would really be redundant. With the EastEnders characters template, Ferreira family is grouped in with past characters, so couldn't Flaherty family, The Banned etc just be moved there too? 'Lists of EastEnders characters' sounds good. Frickative 22:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
{undent) It looks like most articles in Category:Lists of television characters take the form 'List of X characters'. I think all the article titles should match, so I think we should go with 'List of EastEnders characters', 'List of EastEnders characters (XXXX)', 'List of past EastEnders characters' (which we have) 'Lists of EastEnders characters' and they will all match the category Category:EastEnders characters which is an added bonus. When this is done, I'll delete the EEminor template then and I'll remove all references to it from the pages I'm working on, and I'm going to work on rearranging the other templates as well. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
ok, I'm ready to make the changes! I've mostly just put in a blank section with a {{Main}} link so the cleanup will still need to follow. Some of the characters appearead on the same date, so I didn't know what order they should be in, especially the very first episode. Also, some didn't have a first date in their articles, I think Jan Hammond was one so I just put her at the start. Also, Robbie Jackson's friend Kevin has a date before Robbie's first date so I'm not sure if that's right either since it says they appeared together. Anyway, I'm about to do all the changes now! Several redirects will become double redirects but a bot will fix them all. I can expect my watchlist to become incredibly cluttered after that because I have every single one on my watchlist! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did it, and I worked so hard that just when I was about finished, my laptop overheated and switched itself off. I might start on a bit of cleanup tomorrow, in the form of moving very minor characters to the "others" tables and commenting out infoboxes where they're not really needed. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Characters to merge to the new lists

Hello! I'd now like to make some suggestions for articles to be merged. I looked in Category:EastEnders stubs and at the to-do list for articles in need of expansion and would suggest the following be merged:

I didn't suggest these because I think they should be expandable per what Gungadin said above:

I haven't checked in Category:EastEnders articles in need of real-world perspective but there are probably more in there. Juley Smith springs to mind. Any objections? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess not, but can we keep them in the 'in real need of OOUP' cat, because there are many in the merge list that can be expanded with real world info. I'd say Li, Susan Rose, Sandra di Marco, and Gill Fowler should remain merged.GunGagdinMoan 13:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we can keep them in that category, as it's done by the project template on the talk page. I'd just change the class to "redirect" but keep "oou=no", and then we'll know that we plan to unmerge the page in the future. I think because a lot of them are 1990s characters it makes it harder to expand them. I'm just thinking that merging them now will avoid any future AFDs as if anyone came across the those articles and nominated them, we'd be forced to merge them anyway, or update them before the AFD ends which puts the pressure on. This way we can do it in our own time. Of course, it could still happen with the five articles I said not to merge, so maybe we should merge all our short articles with no real-world information... or just do it when an AFD arises. I don't know what's for the best really. But the four you agreed with I'll definitely do. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow - been hard at it, AP! ;) Looks good. Hope everyone had a good Xmas. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I did one little introductory section like you suggested, for Adam Best. Was that the kind of thing you were thinking of? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh by the way, I didn't put Wellard, Willy and Roly on the lists. Should I have? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Betty!! But no, I don't think so.... they are not characters and aren't credited. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I think they are characters, in that their fictional personas dont actually exist in the same way Phil Mitchell doesnt. The dog that played Wellard didnt really die etc. I would include.GunGagdinMoan 21:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why I didn't include them, but we had this discussion years ago. We categorise them as characters, and list them on the list of past characters, so yeah they should be included. Betty doesn't have an article. The only other thing would be to recreate our list of EastEnders pets or whatever it was but make major improvements to it, including them there instead. I'll put them in the characters by year lists. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
But they are not credited?? They are effectively adjuncts to other characters: Den and Rolly; Ethel and Willy; Betty and Pauline; Wellard and Robbie; Ghengis and Keith - they don't tend to operate outside the spheres of the characters they are attached to. I thought a page on pets in EE would be ok, though. I was going to suggest that option, but then thought that all the animals could actually be included in the pages of the character's they are connected too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Familiae Watts (talk • contribs) 06:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Problems with EastEnders website updates

The EastEnders website has been updated, and all the character profiles on the site have been moved. This hasn't broken our external links as the old links redirect to the new ones. But should we try to update them all or leave them as they are? We would have to create a new template while we do it though, and then redirect the old one to it when we've finished. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition to this, we now have several broken references, as old news stories have been removed and those that remain do not redirect from the old urls, and the same goes for any interviews that were on the site. Hopefully they will all be held on the Internet Archive website, but it's something that will need to be fixed at some point. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
And not all the character profiles are on the new site yet so we may end up having to deal with complaints or people removing the links. Does anyone else see any more problems? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
What is the procedure regarding links that are no longer valid? Try to find them in an archive and if not delete them as references or leave?Familiae Watts (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I have to say - the BBC are really doing a bad job with the website imo; it was only redesigned a little while ago and now everything has been pulled down. The thing I liked most about the site was its archives and the fact that it represented the entire history of the show. Hope they are not planning to ditch history for the present.Familiae Watts (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
If the page is still available on the BBC website I would simply update it. If not, try to find it in the Internet Archive www.archive.org, and add "archiveurl=" and "archivedate=" parameters to the citation template. If it's not there, mark it as a dead link using {{dead link}}, or try to find an alternative reference elsewhere. You shouldn't remove a reference just because it's dead. You can make suggestions on the new website, I've already told them it's a shame old links have been lost. But I think they should have waited for the whole site to be finished before they made the new site live. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've today created {{EEcharlink2}} for the updated character links. I've only changed the ones that weren't redirecting, which were ones whose names have changed or they had the wrong name in the old URL. All the present characters, plus Archie, have pages on the new site. Most of them are redirecting so there's no need to change them. Older characters should all redirect to the characters page on the EastEnders website, and I'm hoping that they will be creating pages for them. If we find that they're not doing that, we'll have to remove the external links from older characters, which seems such a shame. I haev a feeling they're not going to bother. As for other dead links, I've looked for a couple in archive sites, but it seems that they haven't been archived, so we may need to find alternate sources when we've referenced something to the BBC site. For news items, this shouldn't be a problem, as often quotes given in the news articles are put on other sites, but interviews are unlikely to be duplicated. I don't know what to do about that. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Free images

I found some free images on Flickr and have uploaded them to Commons, they are in commons:Category:EastEnders. Cool huh? Shame about the person in the picture of the Vic! There are three other photos that have people in them, so before I upload them I thought I'd ask if we want them uploaded. [2][3][4] AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL, i dont mind the hunk in the red top being in the piccies! Yeah upload, better to have them uploaded than to not.GunGagdinMoan 19:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
ok then. We gonna use any of them in articles? :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The cafe one definitely. Not sure about the others. I dont even know whose kitchen it is. It is Pat's?GunGagdinMoan 20:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes it's Pat's kitchen and living room. I just wish the people weren't in all the pictures. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Cite episodes

Does anyone know of an episode archive that happens to list writer/director info? The BBC only goes back a few years as far as I can see, which isn't very helpful. Without even being able to fill in the credits parameter, it often seems pointless using the cite episode template for EastEnders, given that the episodes don't have titles or series numbers or any of that business. Cheers! Frickative 23:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The programme catalogue [5] used to, but that no longer works. Othereise, BFI has some episodes listed [6] and they give crew details.GunGagdinMoan 01:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that! The BFI annoyingly breaks right around the episodes I was after, but nevermind, bookmarked for future reference :) Frickative 03:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Project page

I redesigned the main project page. Who likes it? I copied the Doctor Who one, basically. (Was gonna ask something else but forgot now.) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Any ideas for changing the colours? I was thinking of red to match the Vic! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I think red is too bright. Is it possible to somehow add the capture u took of the River thames satalite view as the background? That would look cool.GunGagdinMoan 00:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean red red but Queen Vic red. It's not possible to have a background image on a Wikipedia page. Any other suggestions? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
That sucks. People do it on userspace though dont they? Well Queen Vic Red it is then. I like Pink, with pale blue spots.GunGagdinMoan 02:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Who has a background image in their userspace? I don't think I've ever seen it. I was just thinking Queen Vic red for the title bars "Welcome!" etc, but then what colour could the background of the actual text areas be? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Like the new design very much - it looks a lot more clear and functional (as a project page should be!) very nice work! ;) Familiae Watt§ (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yay! Having a few problems with the WP:EE/MOS page though :( AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We should have "status" back!!

"Status" should come back. It is part of soap culture. I blame AnonomeProjectors for draining tradition out this WikiProject!! No offence.--Archie Mitchell (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:The Twelfth Doctor. Now blocked. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

'It's part of soap culture', well I've never heard that one before. Although, why did we feel the need to remove it again? Alex250P (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Soap culture! Reasons: Chelsea Fox, for example, was in a relationship, single, in a relationship and single again all within a week so it was pointless to be changing it on a daily basis. It's also "in universe" information and infoboxes should, on the main, be relevant to the character as a whole, whereas when Bradley was in a relationship with Syd, saying he was "in a relationship" was only indicative of a short part of his time in the show. He's been single, dating, engaged, separated, divorced and dating again. Which one should we use? Guidelines tell us "Any in-universe information in the infobox should be essential to understanding the character's context in the overall fiction. Where facts change at different points in the series, there may be no appropriate in-universe information at all to add." AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I suppose we could add it back for characters whose status has never changed, but then people would always update it to the "current" status if it changed, and other characters would have it added. So it's not worth the hassle. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
No way, it was always an irritation. Best to keep rid.GunGagdinMoan 00:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Gungadin and AP.... needless box imo, and too fiddly to keep up. I think the character info boxes are prefectly fine as they are. "status" is too ambiguous a term anyway, and iirc can mean anything from dead to in a relationship!!! Familiae Watt§ (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah and saying that Tiffany Mitchell is deceased in the infobox gives the impression that she was never alive on screen! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Who Killed Archie?

Who thinks we should have a storyline article for this? I do. It's just that I'm sure there is quite a bit of real-world information that could be included but it wouldn't really fit into Archie's article because after his death, the investigation isn't very important to his personal storyline, and it would be good to have all the information in one place due to the number of characters the storyline is involving. However, I tried starting it in my userspace and didn't know what to write. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes sounds fantastic it would be a great article to have may i suggest including all the statistocs about the murder including a list of suspects/possible etc, (we could use the list given on Digital Spy) Brianwazere 22:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The Digital Spy poll listed suspects that aren't even suspects on screen, such as Grant, Danielle and Tracy, so that wouldn't be a good idea. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh well then use suspects who were questioned/arrested or even ones who would just be a suspect e.g Ronnie,Peggy,Phil,Bradley,Ian Brianwazere 22:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. It could have a section giving the main suspects reasons for killing him/wanting him dead etc. W93 (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes exactly W93 that is what i meant by suggestion it really would be interesting to have Brianwazere 22:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

When I started writing it in my userspace, I started with "events leading up to the murder" and wrote details on his plans to take over the Vic and just got to the part about blackmailing Ian and then I accidentally lost the page. But the important thing is the real-world perspective. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
My only concern regarding this is about not getting too caught up "in the moment". I think, in part, this is the reason for the Secret Mitchell storyline article; it may be more circumspect to allow a little time to pass before devoting an article to it? We still do not know how the storyline will pan out.... there is always the possibility that it may fizzle. However, given my own push for an article on Den's death - it might be a nice to have the two standing side-by-side! :) Familiae Watt§ (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking about your article on Den's death when I was cleaning up the Dennis Rickman article, and I think it would actually be helpful because I had to explain Sam and Zoe's parts in his death even though it was nothing to do with Dennis, because it didn't make sense otherwise. I also thought about waiting until the storyline ends to start an article on who killed Archie. I'm sure it's going to be a bit event like Who Shot Phil and won't fizzle out. There are even more suspects here than there were there. But maybe we could at least start collecting sources. Maybe I will start it again in my userspace. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is probably a good idea to start collecting sources - especially those interviews with Larry Lamb over on DS. I personally have in my mind to do the Den article (if I do it) as just an extended "development" section with a brief synopsis at the beginning; I think it's easier to do that way as you can just write the article around the sources and references, rather than trying to find endless quotes about this or that element of the storyline. Of course, a big part of the Den death article is the behind the scenes controversy, which are absent from the Archie storyline - so I don't know if that makes it easier or harder. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My initial thought here was that as with "The Secret Mitchell" (which I still think would be better off merged...) the whole storyline could probably be contained in the Archie character article, but reading the discussion, there are good points raised in favour of a separate article. Do I remember rightly that the revelation will tie in with the 25th anniversary and live episode? If so, there will almost certainly be plentiful sources for inclusion that would be more pertinent to a separate article, and possibly tenuous in the character article. I think it's a good idea. Frickative 16:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's been said the reveal of who killed him will be in the live episode. I also still agree with you about The Secret Mitchell, because that storyline ended at Danielle's death and was basically all about her, but the Archie storyline is carrying on after his death and is about all the suspects as well. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from.... for the same reason that I didn't think Den's death could be properly contained in Den's article, it is a storyline that pulls in other characters and plot-lines; hence a single article helps to focus the information and make it clearer. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I yhink that this who killed Archie should go ahead but maybe after the storyline concludes in February becaue it will give us enough time to get some reliable sources to include Brianwazere 22:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Sun have done a little article just to say who is in the frame and when we'll find out[7] AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes but there is more possibble suspects then mentioned on that article including Jack and Ryan.they both also had motives. Brianwazere 21:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I know. But I was just putting it here as a possible source. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh ya well it is a good source to have:) Brianwazere 21:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a seperate page would be an excellent idea, especially as the Live Episode's storyline is the reveal of Archie's killer and EastEnders have never had a live episode. Alex250P (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone has created it

Someone has created Who Killed Archie?. I disagree with its creation, at least at this stage. What should we do? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I note it was created by someone who solely joined Wikipedia to create it. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
It should be kept but it need to be improved alot more,it doesnt have enough information yet Brianwazere 15:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
It is pretty poor at the moment, but I agree with Brianwazere, deleting it would probably be pointless if it gets created in the future. The storyline still has a month until the reveal of the killer so maybe the article could be improved and information could be added before that time. Whoniverse93 (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Are there any decent sources that could be added at this point? I'm looking and all I'm really seeing are cast member interviews saying "I don't know who killed Archie!". If there isn't significant coverage of the storyline in reliable secondary sources, then it should be redirected to Archie Mitchell as a violation of WP:N. Frickative 15:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been working on it in my sandbox User:AnemoneProjectors/Who Killed Archie for a couple of weeks. There aren't a lot of sources at this stage. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, I think the name "Who Killed Archie?" is original research, as I don't think an actual storyline name has been given. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I was going to say the same about the title... Here's all the sources I've scraped together:
Currently all but the last four could be covered in the main Archie article, and the four that couldn't are worth about a sentence of coverage each. I still think it should be redirected for now. Frickative 17:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree then. I shall work on putting those sources into my userspace anyway, and we can redirect the article. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
One of the reasons I didn't want it to be created was because I wanted it to be eligible for DYK, since now that new characters aren't given a separate article straight away, character pages are never going to be eligible for DYK. It saddens me. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's only a 430 word stub, so a 5x expansion shouldn't be impossible. Frickative 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
True. But if it's redirected for now, would it count as a new article or a 5x expansion? Also cos I'm working on it in my userspace, that kind of invalidates it! But I was going to keep that a secret :) Anyway I saw an old article once added to DYK that hadn't had any expansion. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
How odd, I wonder why it was accepted... Anyway, you can work on stuff in your userspace as long as you want, it only counts as new/expanded at DYK once it hits the mainspace. I think if it's redirected it'll still count as an expansion rather than new, but the wording at DYK is a bit vague... Either way, I think the full article should be fine when it's written. Frickative 18:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Anyway if the title is OR then it could be created with a different name so it wouldn't matter. I know DYK isn't really a huge deal but I've had two articles listed there now and it's an achievement, makes me feel proud! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes

WP:MOSFICT says "Another common type of template, succession boxes, should not be used to describe in-universe relationships in articles about fictional entities." I've always known this but never done anything about it. We should remove succession boxes for Queen Vic landlords and Walford GPs. I thought I'd bring it up here before actually doing it, though. Everyone agree? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I usually remove them if I come across them in the course of editting, but they have a habit of creeping back in. Frickative 17:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
We have a MOS to back it up so we can revert if they creep back in again. I'll go and make sure they're all gone in a bit. I think it's only our landlords and GPs that have them. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Never understood the point of them.GunGagdinMoan 17:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Me neither. One of Trampikey's ideas. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Trampikey, is right! When I used Wikipedia for research I felt it very useful to track down things. I think that your being to restrictive and litigous than more leniant. We need to relent! By the way, I think you should put it back because you have not informed Trampikey and it is annoying! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archie Mitchell (talk • contribs) 23:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Trampikey doesn't need to be notified. He's rarely active on Wikipedia these days. Members of the WikiProject have been notified on this page, plus, the WP:MOSFICT guidelines have been established for a long time and will normally overrule anything we decide on. If you want to know who was landlord of the Queen Vic before Peggy, look at the article about The Queen Victoria. Simple(s). AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm, ok.... read over this earlier and thought "who cares?" but thinking about it, I actually liked the Queen Vic table at the bottom of the page. I think it reflects the (at times almost insane) obsession residents of Walford have for the local pub; and also is a sort of informal marker for the most prominent character/family set at the time. All the characters that have owned/run the Queen Vic are either iconic figures or were pretty important to the show at the time. I'm not suggesting that the boxes be returned, but i think it is a bit of a pity that this is not now clearly recognised. Being the landlord/lady of the Queen Vic is pretty important to the show's fictional reality. Perhaps some minor link or something can be included in the character info box? I don't know - I just feel that it does deserve more recognition than being embedded somewhere in the article body, given how important the Queen Vic is to EE, and to the characterisation of those characters who owned it. I mean, whether people like it or not it is sort of a status symbol within the show, which I think usually has a bearing on the characters in control??? I don't know, just thinking aloud! :) Familiae Watt§ (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I honestly don't see what we gain from them being removed, I thought they were a cracking little idea but seen as though you've already made a decision, but I think Familiae Watts' idea is brilliant, maybe just an extra tab in the infobox saying something like Owner of the Queen Vic (1995-2009) etc. Alex250P (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Any new features that would be of interest to us??? Familiae Watt§ (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Not really. Basically, you can create customised classes. That's the only one I've seen mentioned. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Chrissie Watts article for GA status

Over the last three months I have been working hard on redoing the Chrissie Watts article. I plan on submitting the article for GA status sometime in the next few days, but would appreciate any comments on its state and whether or not it complies with areas of the GA criteria. After that I do intend (rather quickly) on submitting it for FA status; so comments/opinions directed towards that end would also be welcomed. Just to remind anyone of the criteria, the article needs to be 1) well-written; 2) factual/referenced; 3) not to contain original research; 4) images properly labelled. Checking the articles against these points would be immensely helpful. Thapnks all! :) (PS: happy new year!) Familiae Watt§ (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year! It's probably important to preface this by mentioning that while I've written something like 14/15 GAs, I've never taken anything anywhere near FA, so I have zero advice in that area :p That said, great work on the article! I've obviously looked at it recently because of the image issue, but I haven't read it at all before now, so I'll go through a blow by blow as I do, which I hope may be useful :)
  • First point (& a minor one at that): ...a fictional character from the popular BBC soap opera... "Popular" is POV terminology and verging on peacocking - I'd just drop it from the sentence.
  • The first reference has me a little bamboozled. It's attached to the sentence: "She first appeared in April 2004 as the second wife of the show's most iconic character, "Dirty" Den Watts," but it doesn't discuss Oberman's first appearance being in April 04, nor does it mention Chrissie being Den's second wife, nor does it call Den the show's most iconic character, so I'm not entirely sure why it's there. It does call Den "the Square's most enduring character", but that's not entirely the same thing. My suggestion would be to find another source that actually calls him that, and to use quotation marks to make it obvious the "most iconic" is referenced and not POV. I can see by searching the article that reference 31 purports to deem him "one of the most iconic characters in soap history", which would be an acceptable substitute, except the link leads to a 404 error at the present time.
  • On the subject of references, there's a cite error with no. 55, and links 52 and 23 are also dead-ends. If the pages have moved, they need to be found, if they're gone for good an archived version at Highbeam or similar would be acceptable if it exists, if not you need to find different refs to support the following:
Chrissie "has a strong will and fights for what she wants"
Oberman characterised Chrissie as "part victim part villain"
Oberman "gripped audiences with her turn as Queen Vic murderess Chrissie Watts."
  • There are also a couple of wikilinks to disambig pages. Links to The Mirror want to go to Daily Mirror and Sam Mitchell should be Sam Mitchell (EastEnders).
  • Back to the refs for a second - sometimes you have the newspaper names in the "work" parameter, sometimes "publisher". Ideally they should all be moved to work and the publishers added.
  • Right, I got a bit sidetracked there, back up to the lead... One thing I'll mention right off the bat is that the lead seems on the short side given the length of the article. I obviously haven't read it all yet, so I can't say whether it adequately summarises the whole thing, but instinct is telling me it's probably not quite there. For instance, there's no mention of awards or anything up there, when skipping down to reception I see she was nominated for a whole host of them. No doubt I'll be better placed to comment when I've actually finished reading, though :)
  • "In 2005 she became the critical figure of the show" - can you source this, at all? The only other mention of Chrissie being a "critical" role is sourced to reference 21, which fair dues does call her the "centre of attention", but I'm not convinced Walford Web constitutes a reliable source, especially given that it seems just about anyone can write for them [8].
  • Before starting on the body of the article, I notice that the fair use rationale for the infobox image could use some strengthening. Fair use images should never just be for illustration, but in the rationale it says it's there to do just that. It could also be argued that a free image of Oberman would do the same job, and the stronger the rationale is the better, really, so I'd suggest:
"The image serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject, illustrating a single educational article. It is virtually impossible to accurately describe the character for a sufficient picture in one's mind with mere words."
"As a promotional (nonfree) image, the image is not replaceable by free content; the copyright holders have not released similar images into public domain or allowed free use, and any other screenshot would be similarly copyrighted. While a free image of the actor could be found, any such version is not true to the original character and would be inadequate for identification or commentary."
  • I was about to mention that the information sourced directly to episodes should ideally utilise the 'cite episode' template, but I just realised there's a talk page discussion going on there where AP's already brought it up, hee. I also just realised that given that I've never edited the article before but am a very occasional GA reviewer, I could probably have done the review myself, but never mind. I figure the more I nitpick now, the better the chance it'll fly straight through when listed :) However, this has taken quite a while without me actually having gotten to the body of the article yet, so I'm going to take a break and come back to that later. In the same way I prefaced this by saying I don't know the first thing about FA process, I'll end with the disclaimer that you are of course free to take any and all of my comments with a pinch of salt, and ultimately ignore anything you disagree with! Frickative 16:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Most of the EastEnders character articles say "the popular BBC soap opera". I may load up AWB and remove it from them all. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Might be a good idea. I think it's more proilferant in older articles, rather than more recent ones. Anyway, given that I didn't realise there was dual discussion happening at the Chrissie Watts talkpage, I'm going to transclude my comments and continue there for the sake of centralisation. Frickative 20:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Does that mean it's used more in older articles? I think we probably stopped saying it because of POV. Ooh I didn't know you could transclude a section, that's clever! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Yup, that's what I meant... I used to copy stuff like that in the first Holby City character articles I wrote, until I got told off by a GA reviewer for POV, lol. Frickative 21:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Google asked if I meant 'proliferant' and then told it's a biological term :S AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Oops, typo, I did mean proliferant. I always thought it just meant 'more common', but I am often wrong, haha. Frickative 21:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought that was what you meant but I thought I should look it up in case you meant "it's ok to use it in older articles" or something daft like that. Maybe you meant 'prolific'? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Update on article status

So just going to use this space to keep the project updated on what's happening with this article. I've taken all the advice and much appreciated criticisms from Frickative, AP, and Gungadin regarding the Chrissie Watts article and will begin reframing it in the next few days, with a view to having it all done by the end of next week. I know Frickative, you only go 1/3 of the way through, but I can see how much of your criticisms apply throughout so will implement changes to the rest of the article and then would appreciate your once-over again! ;)

Unfortunately there has been a delay because, as I mentioned, I foolishly loost all the sources and references I had gathered for the article (they were bookmarked and I forgot to save it before I formatted the computer). I had about 30 of them and much to my consternation cannot recover quite a few, no matter how hard I search. On the upside, I have found about 3 or 4 new ones which is good (amazed at how much there is on Chrissie Watts out there!!) Anyway, need to go through them and reaquaint myself with the materail after a month away. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Update - I have been able to find quite a bit of info on Chrissie Watts via archive.org's archiving of the EastEnders website; what is the general attitude regarding the BBC website as a valid reference? There is a good interview with Tracy Ann Oberman which obviously constitutes a valid source, but there are also a few little "tidbits" like Den and Chrissie being labelled the "King and Queen of the Vic" which I think is a nice little epithet that does reflect on the conception, representation, and most importantly reception of their characters, but it is from the website itself, not from an interview or episode. Is it valid to reference such a thing? For instance, in the lead to the article, it would function well to encapsulate the way Chrissie was portrayed in the show? Given that it is the BBC website, does that constitute a "closer" source to the material (to be considered as effectively of the production team?) or should it be treated as just any other source and therefore be noted in the article (eg: "with the official website calling them the "King and Queen of the Vic")... if it is to be included at all, just using this King and Queen thing as an example off the top of my head as it may not be workable. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: the top message, sorry, I completely forgot I never finished going through the article! I'd be glad to look it over again when you're done :) Re: the website, I think it should probably be treated as just another source for editorial comments like that. Obviously ideally the content should reflect the producers' intent, but I know that a lot of content on, for instance, the BBC's Holby City website is written by work experience temps, so attributing the views expressed to the production team is potentially a bit of a stretch. A qualifying "described by the official website as..." "according to the official website..." indicates that the material is semi-authoritative, without going as far as to presume that it's 100% what the show officials intended. Frickative 06:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
great, that's what I had in mind. Thanks. :) Familiae Watt§ (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Just thought I should say that anything that's referenced in the article doesn't need to be refereced in the lead, so it would be helpful to move the references out of the lead section. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, ok, so not for quotes/references not made in body of article - they still need to be referenced, but quotes in article don't. Is that right??? Familiae Watt§ (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Btw, can you (or anyone) access www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders at archive.org?? It is very, very, very slow for me for some reason. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I'm sure it's ok for quotes to not be referenced in the lead. They're not foll quotes anyway, just short ones and single words. I can probably access www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders at archive.org but not while Heroes is on BBC Two. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
And yeah if it's in the lead but not in the main body then the reference goes in the lead obviously, but maybe try to put it in the body somehow. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, AP! Familiae Watt§ (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Update: alterations to "Creation and casting" subsection complete.

Not to sure if I am going to be able to get the personality section done today.... the first part just needs a bit of reworking and expanding; the second, on Chrissie's style/fashion will porbably have to be re-written as I have since found 3 very good sources talking about Chrissie's style (one from the show's make-up artist and costume designer at the time). Familiae Watt§ (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to make and comments criticisms of changes (not enough qualifications; too much focus on one issue, clunky text, etc., etc.) I hope to do a few more sections today. Also, don't know if the article talk page should be archived to enable better discussion of changes and future nominations; don't know if the talk page isn't long enough yet, and don't know how to do it anyway. AP? Familiae Watt§ (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to look it over when you're done (someone else might want to in the meantime). Probably not worth archiving the talk page. Oh and feel free to make changes without telling us you're making changes :) Wouldn't it make more sense for this discussion to be on Talk:Chrissie Watts, though? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, lol. I've become somewhat scizophrenic. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Glenda Mitchell

I know we said we'd review characters after they've been in the show for six months, but I'm seriously considering moving the Glenda Mitchell section in List of EastEnders characters (2010) to a separate article as it's taking up a LOT of space and we have plenty of OOU information that can be split into "creation" and "personality" sections. I even did a version in my userspace. What do others think? I also considered Zsa Zsa as I have several references that I haven't used in either the list section or in EastEnders: E20, but I think it wouldn't be right to separate Zsa Zsa without separating Leon and Fatboy as well. Maybe I'll see if I can develop them in my userspace too and see what I can come up with. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes i think all the info on Glenda would be suitable for a seperate article,her and Zsa Zsa are two character that there id alot of OOU info about them Brianwazere 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AnemoneProjectors, it's obvious she's going to be heavily involved in storylines in the near future and already has a great deal of references and content already, especially with the introduction of Danny, I think she should be moved. Alex250P (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, she's actually only in 9 episodes now and Glynis Barber said she'll be back "for a couple of episodes" in the spring. So now I'm not so sure. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going to say go for it before I read that there's nothing definite on her ever becoming a regular. It's a really good basis for a stand-alone article, but if she ends up only doing a dozen episodes, there's not really any potential for it to expand much further, so I'd be inclined to leave it in the list and wait and see for now. Frickative 03:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I meant to say that I agree with Frickative, but forgot. It's not worth doing it if she'll only be in 11 or 12 episodes. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this is a good example of why perhaps that 6 month rule should really be kept to... one never knows exactly how long characters are set to stay for. Unfortunately, we live in the days where hype plays a very big part even in serial shows like EE, and there was a lot of hype surrounding Glenda Mitchell (Santer is very good at hype, which is sadly one of his negatives in my book) - but, it was all short term hype. A lot of viewers get lulled into it (as it is designed to do) and there's nothing wrong with that, but when looking at encyclepaedic (sic!) activities, a more sobering perspective is always best. I think that 6 month rule mooted earlier is a good one to adopt really. Depending on the new exec producer, Glenda Mitchell could well become a regular, but likewise if Kirkwood doesn't like the Mitchells, she may remain a bit player - and I don't think bit players should get their own articles! lol Familiae Watt§ (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The hype is good in that it gets us sources! But it's bad in that it leads us to believe a character will become a regular when they actually won't. If Kirkwood is anything like me, Glenda won't appear ever again. She's terrible! So if we keep the 6 month rule, what about characters that we know have 6 month contracts? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
In part, this is why I generally still think the '6 month rule' is entirely arbitrary, because the only reasonable answer seems to be that it should be decided on an article by article basis, as ever it has been. Eg. Tony King was only a four month character but the article's a GA, yet Liz Turner was a 6/7 month character who definitely belongs in a list. Frickative 12:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The main criteria should be notability, not duration in the show. Article-by-article discussion is the best thing. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Oops... I thought (as I didn't read the discussion properly evidently) that 6 months = a kind of grace period, rather than a specific time on the show; so I thought it meant that we wait 6 months before deciding whether a character is notable enough to deserve an article. So, in the case of Glenda Mitchell, she goes on the "minor character" page, then after 6 months have passed and we have a better understanding of what her role is (or was) and the extent to which the sources contain authentic info, then it can be decided whether the character deserves an article. Sorry, my mistake. :) I was basically coming at this from the position of trying to prevent over-eager fans creating articles on the newest character to take their fancy. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC) (PS: I also hope Glenda doesn't return).
Yeah, when they've been in it for 6 months. I think that's because originally the character lists were for "minor" characters and we didn't know who was going to be minor. But now they're for all characters, we just go by notability, and we can review it when the character has been in it a while, or if the section gets really large, for example, as long as we discuss it first. Can I just ask for one exception? If a new character is announced and there is an interesting fact, can we separate it and nominte it for DYK, like I did for Adam Best (EastEnders) (who even now hasn't been in it for 6 months)? We could always merge it back after it's been listed if we really want to! I just really like DYK! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
no problem for me; again, my chief concern was over having lots of "fanbois" creating articles for the most recent character they have taken a shine too, basically filling the page with plot and little else. I can just see a Glenda Mitchell article that is just filled with in-depth descriptions of her actions in her 1/2 dozen episodes and copious amounts of backstory - that is the only thing I am warding against; having a 6 month breather usually allows a more sobre view. But in the case of a character like Adam Best, it is different given his OOU notability. So I guess I am probbly saying the same thing as you (just taking the long way round). lol Familiae Watt§ (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I just ask for one exception? If a new character is announced and there is an interesting fact, can we separate it and nominte it for DYK, like I did for Adam Best (EastEnders) (who even now hasn't been in it for 6 months)? We could always merge it back after it's been listed if we really want to! I just really like DYK!

The only problem with this is if it's a brand new character, there's not going to be a tonne of sources available, so if someone AfDs it when it goes up, the fact won't be eligible for DYK while there's a discussion in-progress. It would also have to start life as a new article rather than being part of a list, then separated, then merged back, because formerly merged content is also ineligible at DYK. You probably already know this, just something to be wary of. Frickative 05:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Adam Best had only three sources, and an interesting fact. It wasn't AFD'd. Interesting facts aren't that common. Surely if it was added to a list and separated within a day, for example, it would still be eligible for DYK though? If not then it's a silly rule. I don't think we would have this situation very often. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
From the DYK selection criteria: "For purposes of DYK, a "new" article is no more than five days old, and may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article." So, no. And I don't really need to point out that just because Adam Best wasn't AfD'd, doesn't mean no other article with scant sources would be :p That said, I can't remember there being an EastEnders AfD for ages. Unless I'm missing them. I only have about a third of the articles watchlisted. Frickative 09:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm ok then. No there hasn't been an EastEnders AFD for ages. They seem to be leaving us well alone these days. I have all the EastEnders pages watchlisted. You should watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders/Article alerts, then you'll never miss an EastEnders AFD. I think all WikiProject EastEnders members should watchlist that page. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that Digital Spy has Glenda as departing in yesterday's episode.[9] However, as she's said she's returning for a couple of episodes in the spring, should we treat her as a recurring character rather than a regular? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with that. It is more accurate imo. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, thanks Brian for contributing to the discussion before making the change. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Referencing sources in article

Ok, so, as I've said I lost a fair few references when I formatted my computer at the beginning of this month - it was actually really miffing me as I was trying to fix up the Chrissie Watts article; so I decided to go back through a few old newspapers I saved from the 20th anniversary year and also did a couple of hours research at my university library which has newspapers/magazines on microfilm. I knew what I was looking for so it didn't take long (after 5 years at uni I have sharply honned research skills!!) However, most of the articles I have found do not have online url links obviously; is it still fine to reference the articles to the newspapers/mags (including page numbers) or should I try to find the articles on highbeam or something? Familiae Watt§ (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No it's fine, you can use {{cite news}} and just don't put a URL or maybe {{cite journal}}, though that's not really for newspapers. Include as much information as you can. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks AP. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Kathy Beale

Ok, this just bugs me, the fact that Kathy is listed as a Mitchell.... now we know the surname of Kathy's most recent husband, should she perhaps be renamed to Kathy Sullivan?? I know she was never referred to that directly on-screen, but people could still search for Kathy "Mitchell" or Beale, and the fictional logic in-show would surely mean she was known as Kathy Sullivan - unless it was specifically addressed on-screen that she didn't take her 3rd husband's name? Familiae Watt§ (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, she's best remembered as Kathy Mitchell and nobody at all knows her as Kathy Sullivan. Stacey Slater won't be moved when she marries Bradley (if) and Amira wasn't moved when she married Syed. The only person who got moved on every marriage was Denise. WP:COMMONNAME causes a lot of confusion, but in this case, Kathy Mitchell should not be moved. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I understand that, I suppose I just assumed characters were listed under the "legal" names rather than their best known names.... isn't that why Sharon Watts is listed under Sharon Rickman, as she is still most widely known as Sharon Watts??? Familiae Watt§ (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
We used to move them straight away, before we bothered to follow the rules, which is why Sharon is a Rickman and Dot is a Branning. I've often thought about bringing up a discussion to move some of them back. WP:COMMONNAME suggests using Google searches to determine which name is the most common. When Kathy's "current" name wasn't known, the article was located at Kathy Hills, her birth name. Strange thing to do! But umm... we could have a discussion on whether we should rename some of the pages. One suggestion is the name that was used for the longest time, and thus representing, hopefully, the majority of that character's time in the show. We could just leave everything as it is though. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
No biggy.... more important things to do atm probably (The Kathy "Mitchell" thing just annoyed me which is why I brought it up). Familiae Watt§ (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Jumping in with my two cents - I do think if we agree how WP:COMMONNAME should apply, it would be good to have a look at moving some character articles to different titles. Sharon is a good example, and I was prompted to reply just now by looking up Kat on the back of the Jessie Wallace news and finding her under Moon rather than Slater. (On a tangential note, both the Kat and Alfie articles have got a lot of potential for improvement. Anyone planning on working on them/want to collaborate?) Frickative 01:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I added recent development for Alfie and cleaned up his storylines, and I was going to clean up Kat's storylines tonight but there seems to be a huge chunk missing from the start, so I didn't bother. I did Carol Jackson's storylines section today in preparation for her return. A collab would be a great idea. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we can agree to do something about the really major characters to ensure they are correctly titled. So I am thinking:

Sharon Rickman - Sharon Watts
Kat Moon - Kat Slater
Kathy Mitchell - Kathy Beale (??)
Little Mo Mitchell - Little Mo Slater

Some of the others, I feel can perhaps be left alone as there may not be as much consensus regarding their names, like: Lisa Fowler; Mel Owen; Irene Raymond, etc. Pat Evans should remain as Pat Evans?? I've always thought of her as Pat Butcher (but I still think of Dot as Dot Cotton not Branning) but I understand she has been an Evans' longer.

I was thinking the same thing about the Kat and Alfie articles.... I'll help with the Kat article. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

2nd revamp for Chrissie Watts article

Comments and criticisms appreciated - see further on talk page: [10]. ✽ Familiae Watt§ (TALK) 07:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Pauline Fowler

Pauline Fowler is our only FA and this year would be the perfect opportunity to get it listed on the front page. 19 February is the perfect date as it is the 25th anniversary of the show and the 25th anniversary of the character's first appearance, which gives it more points. An alternative date is 26 February, the anniversary of Wendy Richard's death. However, FA nomination looks VERY complicated as they only allow 5 to be nominated at a time though you can replace the one with the lowest points if you think yours has higher points. I think we get 2 points for it being promoted more than 2 years ago, 2 points for being a 25th anniversary, probably 1 point for "contributor history" and maybe more. At least 5 points gives it a good chance, but I'm scared to nominate it because it means removing another nomination. I'm so confused! But now is the time for nomination! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Gah, someone wants Old Trafford for that date because it's a 100th anniversary :( AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
No :( it should be Pauline Fowler :(. EastEnders anniversary is the perfect opportunity for this to appear as the main article --5 albert square (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately it can't be! Old Trafford scores more points for that date. But 26 Feb is Wendy Richard's death date which I think is actually a great tribute to a great actress. And the article scores 4 points for that date and is unlikely to be bumped for another article with that many points. It's just the nomination part I don't like doing! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
It might have scored higher if Homer Simpson hadn't been featured on the main page in December. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: I have nominated Pauline Fowler for TFA: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#February 26. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is now in the queue and will appear on the Main Page on 26 February! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Yay!!

Infobox headings

Why do the infobox headings have "EastEnders character" above the image and the character name below? Wouldn't it be better the other way around? Bradley0110 (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes you're right. It should be the other way around. Does everyone agree? That's how other character infoboxes are displayed. Everyone agree? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, fine. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 14:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I did it. Does it look right? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't think it did so I made the "EastEnders character" bit smaller. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks good - funny how no one noticed the error until now. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 06:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Not really an error, just an inconsistency. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Live episode

Is this worth an article, do we think, or will there be too much overlap with the eventual "Who Killed Archie?" article for it to be worth it? I think I'm finally getting the hang of putting together GA-class episode articles, but if there's going to be excessive duplication, then there's no point. Good opportunity for a DYK, though ;) Frickative 18:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, well personally I think we should not have both a live article and an Who killed Archie article. Although I agree that it is a good DYK opportunity, I don't know how much material there will actually be. Alternatively, perhaps we could have an article on special EE episodes or perhaps something on the anniversary episodes? That way there would be more diverse material. There is obviously alot on the 20th anniversary ep and, iirc, there was quite a high profile surrounding the 15th too. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec cos i had to take a phone call) I was actually semi working on an article about the entire 25th anniversary that would include the live episode, the spin-off, the DVD, the documentaries, the exhibiton, the ad campaigns and anything else, because I didn't think an article just on the live episode would be notable. If we did both Who Killed Archie and 25th anniversary articles, we could do a double-DYK :D AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a really good idea :) I don't think notability or available material would be an issue for the live episode, but if it can be covered as part of a broader topic then all the better! Frickative 19:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, so far I've done a little layout of the sections and I've written about the spin-off (not in detail as there's an article for it) but that's all so far. I haven't done it online though. You could work on the live episode part separately and we could put it all together later. The other parts probably don't have that much info to add. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh no! I just realised I already did this >>> History of EastEnders#25th anniversary!!! I completely forgot about it. An article about the 25th anniversary would be spun-off from that and not eligible for DYK :( - unless... it wasn't copied from there? Wah! It's too hard anyway! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, that is probably a better place for it! Familiae Watt§ (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is, and that article is in need of improvement. Shall we just write about all the 25th anniversary stuff there? Oh wait, you're not Frickative! Butting in on other people's conversations lol grr! :~P (it was your double indent that gave it away!) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Delayed response, sorry, but yeah, I think it's better off all going there. Never mind! Frickative 16:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, never mind. I get you two mixed up because you both have F-names, sorry about that! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I definitely think that now we know the live episode got the highest viewings for about 7 years we either need a live episode or a Who Killed Archie article. Alex250P (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Frickative and I have been working on them for a while in our userspaces. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh that's good, anything I could help out on? Alex250P (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I think they're both almost ready to go live, so I don't think any help is needed right now. I expect we'll move them into the article space at the same time and then go for a double DYK. We've been helping each other :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI both articles have gone live - EastEnders Live and Who Killed Archie?. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice work!! Puts me to shame really, given I said I was going to do the article on Den's death before Archie even got murdered!!! ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 06:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say that you guys are all doing such a fantastic job with the project. Sorry am not around as much as I used to be, but it's lovely to see the project is in such good hands and that all the hard work put in over the years is being expanded on. I just saw Wellard...amazing transformation.GunGagdinMoan 00:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, Wellard is amazing! Surely it shows there must be potential to get many more articles up to that standard? And even though I didn't really work on it that much, I'm really proud that I've finally got Pauline Fowler to the front page, even if it isn't for the 25th anniversary. Everyone be sure to check the front page on the 26th! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh that sounds fantastic, and can I just say aswell that by looking at all the EastEnders articles and ones from other soaps its clear that EastEnders are the best prepared and they are always up to date, so I would have to agree in saying that ye are all doing fantastic jobs and the articles and i can't wait to see Paulinr Fowler's article on the front page it will looking amazing and ye deserve it:D:D Brianwazere 12:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I second that, some of the effort you guys show is incredible, and I try to help wherever I can lol Alex250P (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, check the Main Page on the 19th, too :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Everyone see it? Check out the page view stats for yesterday! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

  1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
  2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_EastEnders/Archive_11&oldid=1141478891"