Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

List of deceased EastEnders characters

Notifying the project that List of deceased EastEnders characters has been created and is currently at AFD. Feel free to comment. Anemone Projectors 18:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

lol thanks for the comments everyone. It got speedied cos it was created by a sockpuppet. But we don't want a list of character deaths anyway, do we? That's why it's a project subpage. Anemone Projectors 11:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Phil Mitchell's Occupation Date(s)

Hi, I am appealing to anyone who know's the occupation dates of Phil Mitchell, as it stands at present his occ dates are as follows, * Barman (c. 1990s–2000s, 2005–10) *Mechanic (c. 1990s–2010) *Businessman (c. 1990s–2009) *Pub landlord (c. 1990s), well if somebody knows precisely when he was in these occupation's please feel free to correct them. --Dweeby123 (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know but you should probably ask on Talk:Phil Mitchell because it'll be seen by more people, and it affects one specific article, rather than the EastEnders project. Anemone Projectors 10:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bianca Jackson 2nd GAR

The article is being reviewed again. Anyone willing to take a look? It seems even more issues have come up than the first time! If it fails, please don't nominate it a third time until everything from both GARs has been addressed! Anemone Projectors 17:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree it shouldnt have been nommed again in the first place. What's irritating is that the different reviewers have requested different things and arent some a little contradictory? I deffo dont agree that we should be using free images of Patsy for Bianca; the images I would keep are the Bianca now and Bianca then images and maybe the wedding one. Thre others can go.GunGagdin ^Moan 17:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond to the suggestion that because it's long, it must be full of fancruft. Uh... Anyways, I put way too much time into it the first time round, I'm afraid I'm not going to be very available for the second nom. Good luck to anyone who takes it on, though! Frickative 19:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done a few of the things but I honestly think the reviewer is being far too picky and I don't think I want to do anything else (even where they weren't being picky). Anemone Projectors 20:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I also dont have a lot of time to put into this this week, and to be honest, I think the article is in good article shape already and I dont think all the things being requested are necessary.GunGagdin ^Moan 21:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way I do think GA standards have been raised recently, but I'm sure some people think it's FAR. I'm considering replying to User talk:CountdownCrispy#Good article mentor request about the fancruft though. "Oh it's very long, it must be fancruft". What complete nonsense that is! Anemone Projectors 21:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

EastEnders articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the EastEnders articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Storylines (re Whitney Dean)

I was going to write this on Whitney Dean's talk page but figured it related to everything... anyway, the reason the storylines were so long is because it's sometimes easier to update storylines as they happen and then remove what isn't important later, because we don't know what is and what isn't important at the time. Plus it's hard to keep it so brief when people update articles after each episode. It might be better to do it weekly but we can't stop people updating. I sometimes think we should add hidden comments like  to make it easier for future condensing.

I also notice that Whitney's appearances in E20 was removed. Do we not think appearances in spin-offs are worth mentioning? Should I stop adding them? Anemone Projectors 20:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to remove the "Other appearances" section - I got an edit conflict when I was cutting down the storylines and must have missed it out copy/pasting into the top box, oops. I've restored it, though it does seem a bit trivial - if it was a regular EastEnders event then Whitney buying a pair of dodgy trainers wouldn't be worth mentioning. Wrt storylines, if that's the system that works best for you then all to the good, I've no problem with it - it just seems that the removing of unimportant bits hadn't happened for a very long time, so it was a bit of a surprise to find the plot section nearly five times longer than when it got to GA. The hidden comment suggestion seems like a very good idea to me :) Frickative 21:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh fair enough. Well I know it was only a minor appearance... but she was in Last Tango too, so if I ever get around to watching it again...... I try to be as brief as I can when I update, but nobody ever gets around to condensing regularly. When condensing a second time, is it ok for the storylines section to be a lot longer, or is it sometimes necessary to re-consense what was already condensed? Anemone Projectors 21:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

seems a little pointless to add info that we know will be removed. I think a weekly or fortnightly update is more practical in theory, but I realise that this cant be controlled on wiki as users update all the time anyway, so if you have a system that works for you AP, then that's grand by me. I dont think there needs to be a rule on condensing. What may seem like an adequate amount of info at one time can easily seem like too much info at a later date.GunGagdin ^Moan 21:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave articles for a week or so. I should probably stop because I never used to but I tend to make notes while I watch the episodes so nothing is forgotten. There are several characters who haven't been updated for some time. I worry that if they don't get updated fairly quickly, important updates will be forgotten. I should probably worry about it less. If I see someone updating I will always cleanup after them or add what they missed, so perhaps I should just leave my own updates for a while and just concentrate on others', then do my own maybe at the weekends or something. Anemone Projectors 21:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Vanessa Gold

Hello everybody. Just dropped by to mention Vanessa Gold. I see she has a lot of text on her section, so I would agree that she has a separate article? She has been in for five months. What do you think? Let me know and I will create it. Thanks --GSorby Desroid - (Contribs!) 20:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. My concern is that we only have five sources. If some kind of a reception section can be created, I would definitely support it. Anemone Projectors 21:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what about this? Now would you support it? --GSorby Desroid - (Contribs!) 22:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say that reception info belongs more in development. You could mention Lucker's "Best Newcomer" nomination at the Inside Soap awards though. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the section you added there is more development than reception. The award nomination is reception though. I meant more along the lines of reception from TV critics. Anemone Projectors 22:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I am really not good at wording, could one of you perhaps edit that page then and add info? --GSorby Desroid - (Contribs!) 22:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox soap character 2 nominated for merging

Are we happy for this to be merged? I suppose I am, as long as nothing is lost. Anemone Projectors 22:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And as long as the more compact layout we use is put in place in the other template. Actually, I'd support merging Template:Infobox soap character to Template:Infobox soap character 2. Anemone Projectors 22:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it actually change anything? Like the character relationships? Do we still get mother, father, brother, sister, step-whatever, family? ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 08:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

For now we will, people are only supporting if nothing is lost, so the template will end up with "parents" as well as "mother" and "father", for example. But the few people who have opposed seem to not want the fields in the other infobox - as it's fully protected, they would be "trapped". But I would be totally opposed to combining 'sons', 'daughters', 'step sons', 'step daughters', 'adoptive sons', 'adoptive daughters' all into 'children', for example, as we'd end up having to use brackets. Look at Danielle Jones (EastEnders) for example - she has parents and adoptive parents, half siblings and adoptive siblings. I might actually oppose the merge. Anemone Projectors 11:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There, I have opposed. Anemone Projectors 11:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Opposed as well. I am actually a little miffed at the suggestion that somehow the infobox #2 is more amatuerish. I mean, infobox #1 has "relationships" as a parameter (!!!!), "other relatives", first appearance. I find it to be far more reader's digest-like. I mean "relationships"!!!! I think the infobox #2 could stand to loose a few parameters but I think it is a more polished and more pertinent template. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 12:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey ho

Just popped in to say hi, and hopefully will be able to work on some articles towards the end of the year.

Hope everyone is well. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 10:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Haven't seen you for ages! Maybe we can get your family article up to scratch. Anemone Projectors 11:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good idea.... still very busy for the moment alas, but things will quiten down significantly in a month. So that can allow a bit of time for us to gather resources (?), get our heads around it all again, and then delve into a bit of heightened activity before Xmas. Is Fricative still about/interested. It would be good to get it done - I think we 3 were really geting a good handled on it when real life called me away. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 08:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, good to see you around! I'm still here and still interested, it would be great to get that one finished :) Frickative 14:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Kat Slater

In addition to working on the families page, I would really like to see this get up to scratch - GA grade. If we could start searching for some sources over the next month or so and began to revamp the article towards the end of November, I think that is a doable goal.

Also, one thing I would REALLY like to do, is revisit the "naming" of characters on Wiki. If we could have a good discussion on that, setting out WP policy, because I really dislike the idea of Kat "Moon" and Sharon "Rickman" (the latter especially). ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 01:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

User:AcidBrights already did some fantastic work on Kat's article in the week before she returned. There's no reason why it couldn't be nominated for GA now - well, after the reception section is expanded and the popular culture section is sourced. An article doesn't have to be huge to be GA. I nominated Fatboy (EastEnders) the other day. In fact, Bianca Jackson's GA failed recently and one reason was that it was deemed to be inappropriately long.

As for page titles, I think that should be started under a new heading, so we can all have a proper debate about it. Many articles may be affected, including Dot Branning, Pat Evans, Kat Moon, Denise Johnson, Sharon Rickman, Lynne Hobbs, Sonia Fowler, Melanie Owen, Honey Mitchell, Kate Mitchell, Kathy Mitchell, Little Mo Mitchell, Irene Raymond, Yolande Trueman, Debbie Bates, Cindy Beale, Natalie Evans, Clare Bates, Lisa Fowler and Ruth Fowler. Of course, some won't need to be moved, but it needs discussing and has never been. We've always said it should be. But it needs its own discussion, away from discussing the improvement of Kat Moon. And it'll need a long discussion, not just three people going "yep" and then moving the pages. Anemone Projectors 01:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was reading the Kat article and thought it was good - but noted that it still only had C or start class, so I just assumed that there was some glaring omission that needed fixing. Well, perhaps we can think about puting it up for review. I am try and do a few source searches over the next week. Perhaps we can tentively say that "we" (as the project) will submit the article for nomination at the beginning of November, and perhaps ask members fix it up where they see it appropriate? (Re the Bianca Jackson article. Had a look and to me, at least, it seems there are a number of other issues affecting that article, rather than just length. I don't think it is near a good quality yet - but that is my opinion). Agree about the names thing. If you want, I can take the lead in organising discussion on that (leaving messages at people's talk pages who edit EE articles and/were former members etc) over the next few months. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 01:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The glaring omission was that the class hadn't been updated - the project banner still said it was in need of real-world information. Changed to B-class now! Maybe it should be C, not sure. Either way, there's still work to be done. Yes Bianca's article did have other issues. It also had a picky reviewer. So you need to be prepared for that! Maybe GA standards have increased, but I've never had more than a few minor changes when I've had GAs. Anemone Projectors 01:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm totally on board for lending a hand with the Kat article. AcidBrights has done a great job with it lately. I think apart from reception and popular culture, the pre-2010 development needs a fair bit of work, as the main focus atm is her departure. Findarticles.com seems to have had some major problems recently, but there are still 19 pages of Kat-related articles archived dating back to 2000, which is as good a place to start as any. I'll trawl through over the weekend and drop anything promising off at the article talkpage. Frickative 03:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Great Frickative. I'll have a look through highbeam and begin lending a hand over the next few weeks. It just seems to need some targeted love! The reintroduction section is fine - and in fact is probably too long in the context of her history. However, imo I think all the oou development stuff is great, but the storyline section regarding her 2010 return needs considerable triming. She's only been back a few weeks and already it almost equals all her other storylines from 2000-05!!! We should be able to expand upon the development and casting sections. I'll put my thoughts down on the character talk page though. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 07:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, just added a proposed structure to the article on the talk page. It's just MY thoughts.... don't want anyone to think I'm trying to be dictatorial; but for me, I cannot do these character article pages unless I have the structure done first. Even the page on Dennis Rickman, which is not completed, actually has a fully outlined structure done!!! (As do my pages that I propose to rework - Den, Sharon, Dennis, Suzy Branning). So I like to do this first. Please give thoughts and criticisms. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 08:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A warning!

Ok - my last new section for the week I promise. But I thought I would "warn" everyone (jovially) that I do intend on taking the Chrissie Watts article to FAR before the end of the year - I know there was tremendous hassle over Pauline's, and it may turn out to be as bad or worse for this article, but I'm game for the challenge. I plan to submit the article I did on She for FAR first - hopefully earning some kudos and so I can't just be dismissed as some soapy fan!!!! I believe that the She article does meet FAR standards so am really hopefully to get it through. I suppose my experience with that will ultimately determine if I have the fortitude to proceed with the Chrissie Watts article. But I would just like to ask, and please be brutally honest, whether you think it will or won't be successful and why. I plan to rewrite the Reception section and do some tweaking to the Personality section (where there is some repetition in character development) before going to FAR, but there should not be any drastic changes to the article as it stands. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 08:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with Chrissie! I want to take EastEnders: E20 to FA, now that the second series is completed. Anemone Projectors 14:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. It should stand a good chance imo. Do you want to go "first"? As I say I want to take the article on She to FA first, and it may be better if we space our applications given that they are soap TV articles and the FAR can be very snobbish. Or do you think I am over-reacting? ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 14:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to help out on the E20 articles. Please let me know :) --GSorby Desroid - (Contribs!) 15:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with this guys. Hate to say it, but brown-nosing in your replies appears to be a good tactic, "Thanks you so much for your review....I hadn't considered this but you're soooo right!! the article is all the better for your proposed changes...Please can I clean your feet with my tongue for ripping the shit out of my work????"...Yuck! I was never very good at that. FA is a bit too political for my liking but if you just remember to not take it seriously you'll have a few less grey hairs at the end of it. I'll help if I am around.GunGagdin ^Moan 14:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

lol! Sadly, that is probably good advice Gungadin! ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 14:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Death of a baby

We don't know whose baby will die (Ronnie's or Kat's) but here's a source [1] for when we find out. It's probably going to be our for 2011 character and there's some real world information for both the child's section in a future list of 2011 characters and the parent's article as well. (I'm guessing Ronnie because she's the tragic heroine who is always denied happiness). Anemone Projectors 15:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh and we already know it's a boy. Kat's having a boy, don't think we know what Ronnie's having yet do we? Anyway this isn't a forum so I'll go off to Digital Spy now :P Anemone Projectors

Hmm I must have imagined the word "he" in that story cos I can't see it now Anemone Projectors 15:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Talking to yourself and imagining things? That's not a good sign. :P - JuneGloom07 Talk? 15:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hehe. I always talk to myself! But I definitely say "he". Anemone Projectors 16:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, you weren't imagining things; "there will be a lot of unanswered questions surrounding his death". - JuneGloom07 Talk? 16:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Tsk!I looked and looked and couldn't find it. I searched for "he" and "him" but forgot about "his" lol Anemone Projectors 16:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Vanessa Gold (again)

Okay, how's this? I think Vanessa should be spilt off, who agrees with me? --GSorby Desroid - (Contribs!) 19:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not. I'm sure it can be expanded as well. Award nomination needs a reference - there will be one in the list of awards and noms for EastEnders page. Anyone else have comments? Anemone Projectors 20:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh god, I'm SO desperate to create my first article :') --GSorby Desroid - (Contribs!) 20:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

lol sorry to burst your bubble but technically it won't be your first article as it's just a split off from an existing entry in a list :( Anemone Projectors 20:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh and just added ref :) and it will be the fist new article created, technically speaking, oh, you know what I mean!! --GSorby Desroid - (Contribs!) 20:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The lead could be expanded, it should be a summary of the article. - JuneGloom Schmooze 20:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've sorted the lead and stuff, basically I took what was written in the list and reduced it down to the essentials, leaving that referenced, the copied it to the lead, removing the references, but making sure that everything in the lead was covered in the main sections. Anemone Projectors 21:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Free images in lists :-D

I've added free images for Reverend Stevens, Jordan Johnson and Opal Smith. Gonna do more if I can. What do people think? Problem is I don't want to put them in infoboxes, so I had to hide Stevens's infobox. Jordan's section is big enough to not create extra whitespace :-) Anemone Projectors 01:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should do this, purely because of the fact it's not the actual character, it's the actor. --GSorby Desroid - (Contribs!) 13:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've made it clear that it's an image of the actor not in character. They do this in Characters of Friends so why not here? We can't use non-free images of characters. Anemone Projectors 13:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff, AP! The images are good quality and the captions make it explicitly clear they're of the actors, not the characters. The one of Michael-Joel David Stuart in particular is excellent. Used outside of the infoboxes, I can't see a problem with it. Frickative 15:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh good :-) I was hoping to use the photo of Michael Obiora too but Ellis Prince is in "others" for being too minor. Gonna see what others I can use though. Anemone Projectors 16:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Fiona Morris too. Anemone Projectors 16:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Character name at the top of the infobox

In the case of Ronnie Mitchell, Stacey Slater and many others, the name in the infobox has been changed to the character's married name, even though it doesn't match the article title. I think it should match the article title though. What do others think? I also think adding an "alias" parameter for the infobox might be a good idea to add other names the character has had, so that "Ronnie Branning", "Stacey Branning", "Pat Wicks", "Denise Wicks" etc etc etc could be added. Anemone Projectors 14:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Great idea AP! I think it will make the articles look more organised too! ;) --GSorby Desroid - (Contribs!) 14:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

agreedGunGagdin ^Moan 14:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I've added alias to the infobox... Anemone Projectors 15:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Birth Date Template

So, I was looking around and I noticed a template that shows the date of birth and the age. For example, if somebody was born on 18 April 1958, the template would show (1958-04-18) 18 April 1958 (age 66) and would go up with their actual age. Would this be a good idea to use these in EastEnders articles? What do you think? --GSorby Desroid - (Contribs!) 12:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't use age for fictional characters because it doesn't represent the character's entire time in the show. For example, if we said Ian Beale is 41 years old, it wouldn't represent the years 1985 to 2009, when he wasn't 41 years old. Anemone Projectors 16:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Images in lists again

List of EastEnders characters (2006) just had all its images orphaned per WP:NFLISTS. It looks like we may end up losing every image in every list, where previously we were allowed to keep a small number of them. I reverted the removal but commented them out so I know the file names and can restore them in future if necessary. Anemone Projectors 17:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, is this a new rule? |:C --GSorby Desroid - (Contribs!) 17:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. Our articles have been targetted before regarding this rule, but somehow we were allowed to have 5 or 6 images on a page. Anemone Projectors 17:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So what's happening now? Just wait 'till all this passes? --GSorby Desroid - (Contribs!) 17:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest don't do anything and see what happens. Anemone Projectors 17:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed the images, and have done a few other list articles in this series as well. As AnemoneProjector noted, there's a WP:NFLISTS violation. Per character non-free images are generally not supported. Of particular concern is that in these lists articles there are very few references, and notability of these characters outside of in-universe references is suspect. It's not necessary to display a character if they are not notable enough to warrant their own article. If a cast photograph (not a user created montage) can be located for each season, that's certainly acceptable at the top of the article. But per character images are not. Pumping in eastenders cast into Google images produces a number of potentially viable images for this purpose, such as this image. Another alternative is finding free images of the actors that portrayed these characters, as their on-screen visual appearance would not be significantly different than their real world appearance. See Characters of Friends for an example of this type of usage. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with images of multiple cast members is that not all of them will have been introduced in the same year, so we would have people in a photo who don't belong in a certain list. EastEnders doesn't have seasons (or series as we call them in the UK), and we have split the lists by year for characters introduced in that year. A cast photograph taken now would include characters who joined in various years from 1985 to today. The only year it would be possible to have no overlap would be 1985. As for free images of actors, these are very hard to come across in the United Kingdom - in the States is seems very common but here it just very rarely happens. Especially for the actors portraying characters who don't have their own articles. Anyway, my only request is that instead of removing the photos, you just comment them out so I can easily restore if we ever manage to split any of them off. Anemone Projectors 19:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a particular law in the UK governing rights of images of people in public places? Regardless, there is a list right here on this project of a number of free images of these actors at Wikipedia:WikiProject_EastEnders/Free-use_images. That seems to prove that free images are obtainable. I understand the issue with cast photos, but I don't think that's an overriding reason to permit mass use of non-free images, most especially when so few characters have out of universe references. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, no law, they just seem harder to get. I don't know why. Shows like Lost and Glee have conferences and things where people can go to meet the casts, but we don't have that here. We could consider using some of the free images for the actors whose characters don't have individual articles but I would be against using them in infoboxes, because the infobox is for the character, plus a recent IFD ended with the consensus that a free image of an actor is not the same as an image of a character. By the way, more recent lists have many more out-of-universe references, but we created the lists to deal with articles that were likely to be nominated for deletion. And I certainly didn't mean that the issue with cast photos is an excuse for using non-free images. Anemone Projectors 20:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, a photo like the one here could be used in the 1985 list but all the actors/characters in that photo have separate articles. Anyway, I'm not trying to make excuses, I'm just saying :-) Anemone Projectors 20:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If I may say, what exactly heppened to the 5, 6 images per list rule? Cos as far as I remember the lists did get attacked about this once before, am I right? :) --GSorby Desroid - (Contribs!) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a 5-6 per list rule. It's never existed, and wouldn't. The issue is the type of use. These characters are not significant enough to have articles of their own, and these lists are largely empty of references. Within that context, having per character images doesn't make sense. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

When this was brought up before a few years ago, we were allowed to keep a small number of the images in the lists, whereas before we had one for every character. I don't know where this discussion happened, as I cannot find it. By the way, EastEnders episodes in Ireland isn't technically a list. Anemone Projectors 21:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I went looking for the archive of the prior discussion here as well, and could not find it. As to the Ireland article not being list; semantics. The reality is that the Flaherty family is outlined in character list form. Regardless, the same issues apply to episode lists as they do to character lists. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

TBH, I really don't see this as much of an issue. IMO, having images only for some of the characters made the page a little unsymetrical (in a vertical sense!) - which isn't visually appealing. But if the characters don't warrant their own pages then they probably don't warrant their own images - especially in the context of the EE Wiki Project, which does, if possible, have separate pages (including for some characters that I don't think warrant it - but that's another story and down to personal inclination rather than violation of rules :) ). My only objection to this is that the changes were just made without, to my knowledge, giving a heads up. I know WP is huge, and there are many defunct projects about, but the EE Wiki Project is blessed to ave 2 very commited and prolific members who can usually give immediate feedback. I think a brief "These images are really a violation of regulation and I propose to remove them" would have been courteous. Often times it is difficult to determine if someone isn't just being overly malicious with the rules, rather than raising a legitimate point as I believe does relate to these pages. That's all. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 00:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Junipers Liege, thank you, thank you. To explain the thank you a bit; I first came to edit an EastEnders article by way of List of EastEnders characters (2006) appearing on Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files, a report I routinely patrol. When I conduct such removals, I often look to see if there's been recent discussion on the talk page of the article regarding the overuse issue. But, I don't look at which project(s) have tagged the article as being within their purview. There's several reasons for this. First, several projects are simply dead. The tags on the articles have been there for years, but the project itself has long since stopped operating. Second, some projects have developed editing guidelines that contradict community wide accepted norms. Third, many projects feel a strong sense of ownership towards articles within their purview. This makes sense; they are the editors who most contribute to these articles. So what happens is the issue is raised to the project, usually everyone in the project objects, and we're left with a 'consensus' to leave the images in, despite our policies and guidelines on the issue. This usually happens after long, exhaustive debate which repeats the same ground that's been debated in other places, with the same repeated arguments. It's cumbersome, and makes it impossible to get articles in compliance with our WP:NFC guideline. It's not that I think I'm right and the project is wrong. It's that the project doesn't own the article in question, the NFC guideline supersedes any local project guideline, and if there's a debate it shouldn't be held at the project level. Frankly, this is the first project I've encountered which has treated the issue civilly, logically, and without expressing any sense of ownership. I'm quite impressed. Therefore, thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand.... and I understand also about the issue with Wiki Projects.... many are dead and others do have an entitlement attitude, so I can see why you would not have thought to check with the relative project, as for every project that may be helpful, you'll get 2 or 3 that are dead or worse. As I say, I personally don't have a problem with the removal of the images from the page/s in question. It is difficult enough to justify them on full-blown article pages! But generally speaking, the EastEnders Wikiproject is very pre-ocupied with doing things according to WP guidelines. I have learnt that. It has been, to my understanding, partly in response to the attitude held by some that articles on TV programmes, especially soaps, are not what WP is about, and so EE articles have come under a lot of fire. The way this was delt with was to change the articles so that they met guidelines. But I can speak for myself and others here, that we are very aware of making sure article follow policy. So, if you do come across problems, please don't hesitate to bring it to the notice of this page. You shouldn't (hopefully) get a bad response. We're all here to work together after all and all that! ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 14:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually completely agree with Junipers Liege here (first comment, not read the last one...). I think the thing with the images is the shock. When things change I often think "I don't like that, it looks horrible" but after a day or three I'm used to it and it's fine. I try to go along with Wikipedia policy where I can, so generally if someone says "you should do it this way" I go stick with it. Same thing happened with the new WP:ACCESS stuff relating to Wikitables on some other articles I edit. If the images have to go, then that's it. Anemone Projectors 14:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If you'd both like to help, I went through Lists of EastEnders characters articles and found close to a hundred images that should be removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't want to help! lol, cos secretly I want to get away with it for as long as possible ;-). Does it include List of EastEnders characters (2010)? We came up with this six-month rule where we wouldn't split off a new character until they'd been in the show for roughly six months or had loads of references (pending discussion), so some main characters are still there. Anemone Projectors 15:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree the 2010 ones need to be kept for the moment, and going through the 09 pics there are a few characters there that may end up becoming bigger figures. But I imagine images prior to 2009 can be commented out. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 15:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the 2010 list is one such article. Also, the rule about six months seems a bit backward. The aspect of waiting until there's significant references does track with policy. The six months thing doesn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the 6 month thing is, ahem, a Project rule - it was designed to stop new pages being created every time a new character appears. The difficulty, as far as photos goes, is that it is obviously impossible to judge how long lsting a character may be - yet when they first appear is often a very prolific time for them and provides ample opportunity to get an image. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I usually get an image within the first 3 days :) I provide 90% of images now. Partly my fault? :S --GSorby Desroid - (Contribs!) 16:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Everyone's fault really. I mean, I knew we shouldn't be adding the images, but I still let you do it. I actually got a group photo for List of EastEnders: E20 characters before the infobox ones were added. See, I did know the rules all along! Anemone Projectors 17:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Since there's a cast photo now on top of the E20 article, I removed the individual images as redundant. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way don't worry about commenting out, I'm going to save all the pictures anwyay :-) Anemone Projectors 18:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Honestly, it completely slipped my mind with this removal. Brain addled. Insert coffee. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Coming in late to this discussion, but we've been here before many times, which was why I was opposed to some of the prominent characters being merged to the lists just because they were sourceless at the time (like Richard Cole and Jules Tavernier). Still, if ever we get around to building these into worthwhile articles they can be separated and the image put back. For now and from henceforth, it's worthwhile reverting all inclusions of images to these lists because it's just a waste of everybodies time. We've had this discussion many many times. For anyone interested, the 5 image 'rule' was not a wiki rule, but a way to get around entire deletions from lists, because at the time, fair-use vios were only indicated as such if they exceeded 5 images. Articles with more fair-use images than that used to appear on a "fair-use overuse" page, and some club known as "the fair-use army" used to come around and delete all images from articles that appeared on that list. There was never any wiki rule to say that 5 images or less were permitted, it was just that the fair-use army had bigger fish to fry so left the smaller numbers of images alone..lolGunGagdin ^Moan 13:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm I've just had another look at WP:NFLISTS and I note two things. Firstly, it says "non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic." Surely an image of a character in a list of characters is a key visual aspect. Secondly, it says "It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section." Inadvisable does not mean "forbidden", and each entry does not mean "any entry". So it's actually saying that a few non-free images are ok as long as they are major characters. Which is exactly how we have been using images. Shall I restore them all now? Anemone Projectors 22:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, I did read that policy, and I agree with you AP, but I didn't want to get involved :-( --GSorby Desroid - (Contribs!) 23:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I read it but I didn't really notice that's what it was saying until today. It is very clear to me: some non-free images are allowed in lists. Anemone Projectors 00:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not at all uncommon for people to read that and feel there is wiggle room within it to allow some arbitrary quantity of images. There isn't. It's not that there's a specific prohibition, it's that including such images indiscriminately carries no weight. If there are key characters within the series (such assertion supported by secondary sources), then yes. But randomly, arbitrarily adding images wherever one likes because it fits some vague idea of permissiveness supposedly supported by WP:NFLISTS is misdirected. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

We already cut down the images to just the main characters. And NFLISTS doesn't say we cannot have any images. I just says we can't have one for every entry. So we're following the guideline perfectly. We're not doing it indiscriminately at all. Anemone Projectors 02:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As I previously noted, there are approximately 100 images used on these lists. There aren't 100 prime characters in EastEnders. Further, unless the visual appearance of the character is somehow significant to the story line, there's not much point to the image. Attempting to retain these approximately 100 image uses will not go well. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you know there aren't 100 "prime" characters in EastEnders? Do you watch it? Right now there are over 40 prime characters, so considering the 25 years it has been on air, there must be at least 400 prime characters. Anemone Projectors 13:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you honestly think Wikipedia, a free content project, is going to permit the use of 400 non-free images to describe a single TV show in encyclopedic fashion??? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Anemone Projectors 00:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no other series on this project that hosts that many non-free images. None. These images must largely go. If you're willing to revert war to prevent it (which is apparently the case), then I will start other measures to have them removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, those fighting to keep the images do not understand that this is a "free content" work and non-free images are exception more explicit than US fair use laws. As these are all normal, everyday characters, there is almost zero justification for any single character image because there is a free replacement, a photo of the actor themselves. As Hammersoft has said, a single montage image is completely fair, and while it may be difficult to work montages into the way you structured these articles, that's a problem here, not with non-free content policy. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Masem and Hammersoft. The nonfree content requirements, especially #3, are clear in spirit: We always use less nonfree content, not more. One montage image has generally been held to be sufficient for lists. If the article needs to be restructured to accommodate that, it needs to be restructured to accommodate that. We'd never allow more nonfree content rather than less just for convenience. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

~~"I will start other measures to have them removed" - can you let us know where you have brought this up because you clearly have gone elsewhere to get more people to comment, thanks.~~ (never mind, I found it)

"there is a free replacement, a photo of the actor themselves" - it has already been agreed that an actor is not a free replacement for a fictional character. There was a huge debate about this when a fictional character image was listed for deletion as replaceable. It went to a review and everything. That is clearly community consensus. In 99% of cases, the actor image just does not exist.

"One montage image has generally been held to be sufficient for lists" - are you saying we can put 6 images into one?

"If the article needs to be restructured to accommodate that, it needs to be restructured to accommodate that." - sorry but we won't be doing that. Anemone Projectors 10:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Look, if we're not allowed to use any images, maybe NFLISTS should be changed to say that. Because right now it says we aren't doing anything wrong according to that. Anemone Projectors 10:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User created montages where we take 6 non-free images and make one image out of them does not reduce the amount of non-free use. It's still 6 images, and you'd still need 6 rationales. As to free replacements, yes there has been debate in many more forums than what you refer to. It isn't as clear as you suggest. See List of Saw characters, which has 4 free and 1 non-free image. List of recurring Earth characters in Stargate SG-1, 6 free and 1 non-free. Cases can be made where the real life appearance of an actor is substantially different than their on screen appearance. Example; Rick Yune playing List_of_James_Bond_henchmen_in_Die_Another_Day#Zao. This is especially true when there's cited discussion regarding the appearance of the character. Just adding images because it illustrates the article (as I'm seeing in most, if not all, cases of non-free inclusion in the EastEnders articles) does not pass that metric. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
As Hammersoft said, you'd need an "official" cast montage, not a "homemade" one. Those are available for almost all shows, generally easily accessible on the show's website. As to restructuring the articles, please don't get me wrong—no restructuring is mandated by the NFCC requirements. The current noncompliant images will need to go, and unfortunately that is not negotiable (glad to explain why, but the answer is the answer, and unfortunately the NFCC rules are not subject to consensus or negotiation). What you do from there, be it to use single montage images, free actor images, restructure any articles, etc., is entirely up to you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but there aren't any official cast montages, and especially not for characters introduced in a particular year (e.g. if a cast photo was released now, it would feature actors who joined the cast in 2010, 2009, 1994, 1986, 1985, and so on), so they would be inappropriate. This is a soap opera, not Friends or Lost, so "season" cast promos aren't made. It doesn't even have seasons. Look, I was with Hammersoft on this until I properly read NFLISTS. It doesn't say we can't do what we've done. Anemone Projectors 13:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And I might have been with you until you wholesale reverted me and claimed that 400 non-free images would be acceptable for this series. I'm all for judicious, preferably cited, usage. 400, even 100, non-free images would make this series by far the most user of non-free images of any TV show anywhere on Wikipedia. Nothing even begins to come close. This sort of overuse simply isn't permitted. People frequently read WP:NFLISTS and think there's substantial wiggle room within that guideline to permit the usage of non-free images as they like. The neutering of this guideline in this manner completely misses the point. Case point; List_of_EastEnders_characters_(2009)#Theo_Kelly. A non-free image is being used to depict this character, being portrayed by Rolan Bell. He isn't dead, and is only 26 years of age. There are hundreds of images of him on the web. Obtaining a free image of him should be relatively easy, and his onscreen appearance in this series is not significantly different than his appearance in real life. Yes, there's cited discussion in the article regarding his good looks, but his good looks are because of him, not the costume he is in (which isn't much of a costume) or any makeup he is wearing (if any). A free image would serve the same purpose, and such an image is readily obtainable. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine but where in NFLISTS does it say we can't use any non-free images? It doesn't, it just says we can't use one for every short section. Some of our sections are even quite long. Danny Mitchell (EastEnders), for example. Anemone Projectors 14:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say you can't use non-free images. It also doesn't say you can use 400 images to portray the 'main' characters. The frequently used metric is that if a character is not notable enough in their own right to have their own article, then there isn't much justification for an inclusion of an image of that character in a list article unless there's (preferably cited) discussion regarding the character's visual appearance. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Should I revert myself? Anemone Projectors 16:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer that, yes. Honestly, I'm so dumbfounded at the offer I don't know what to say :) There's such a trench mentality around the whole project most of the time. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "trench mentality"? I know I would never win, so I figured I would just let it be. But I do think NFLISTS probably needs clarifying, as it seems lots of people have this confusion. You know, sometimes it probably is worth disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Anemone Projectors 17:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way I'd just like to say that we have 220 characters with separate articles, and each has an image. That's not an issue though because their usage is perfectly justified. One fair use image in each article (well, in most cases). Sure some do have notability issues but the majority of them don't. So I don't really get the whole "400 images" argument. If there were 400 separate articles, this conversation would never have happened. I'd also be interested in your opinion regarding characters like Vanessa Gold, which may be split off soon, and Danny Mitchell (EastEnders), a notable character who was in the show for less than six months so we decided against splitting him off. Anemone Projectors 17:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no iron in the fire regarding splitting things off. If the standalone articles can pass notability requirements, then so be it. I will say that while researching this I came across List of Days of our Lives characters, and found all sorts of problems. For example, virtually empty article Peter Blake (Days of our Lives), Phyllis_Anderson and Mary Anderson (Days of our Lives), and long articles having no secondary sources at all Susan Banks, Frankie Brady and Colleen Brady. There's PLENTY more of these, and that entire series needs a thorough going over. Please, don't make the same mistakes the editors of that series have done. If a character has substantial, non-primary sources to support notability, then fine. Also, avoid WP:PLOT sorts of problems. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We do have some articles similar to Susan Banks but people have felt they are notable enough and can be expanded to include secondary sources. These are all old characters, and we used to have lots more but they were all merged into the lists, in fact most of the images in the lists came from articles that used to be standalone pages. Now we avoid the WP:PLOT type problems by putting new characters straight into the lists (such as Julie Perkins who only joined the show very recently) and only split them off when we feel they have gained enogh notability and secondary sources. Anemone Projectors 18:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In which case, if a character has sufficient notability, no matter how long its duration, I would am for splitting from the lists.GunGagdin ^Moan 18:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If each individual character has out of universe notability and sourcing, that would be an option. Is that actually the case, though? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As has been stated by Gungadin ("if a character has sufficient notability") and myself ("only split them off when we feel they have gained enogh notability and secondary sources"), we're not in the habit of splitting off characters with no OOU notability and sourcing. So trust us on that. The issue of the images is now resolved so there's not really any need for further discussion. Anemone Projectors 22:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Plus we always discuss the splitting off of a character first to make sure all WikiProject EastEnders members are happy. Anemone Projectors 22:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

With this discussion in mind, I've restarted removals. I've removed 6 images from List of EastEnders characters (2008), and given this discussion I'm not notifying individual uploaders. That's certainly not out of maliciousness, but just the level of work required and given that most (all?) of the uploaders are already aware of the general issue. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me though I didn't upload any of them myself. But everyone is probably aware and has the images on their watchlists. I do appreciate you not doing them all at once (just one article at a time) as every image is on my watchlist and also the bot that deletes them doesn't delete the talk pages so I'm cleaning up after them and it's handy only having to do 6 at a time rather than 100. Anemone Projectors 14:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm done with all the list article image removals. There is still an article from this series which appear on the overuse list, and that is Martin Fowler (EastEnders). Some review would be appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Uniformity

Hey all, been away from regular editing for a while so just looking for a catch up and some discussion about some titles for sections. Am I right in thinking that we are now putting Storylines as the 1st section? Also, I propose that we get rid of any part in titles that say 'character', and just leave creation and development, as character seems redundant. Also instead of Personality, should we call it "characterisation"? GunGagdin^Moan 00:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Storylines should come first according to WP:MOSTV. It does kind of make sense and a few articles have been rearranged. "Character" is redundant and is probably in very few articles now, we've been removing that from the section titles since a few years ago. Characterisation is good but personality is good too. I used characterisation for all the E20 series 2 characters. It's good to get some uniformity but it does depend on what information there is. Anemone Projectors 00:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, storylines/plot are recommended to come first to give readers context, but I've typically only been moving them up once they've been condensed to a manageable level. I think 'Characterisation' reflects portrayal and directorial intent a bit more than 'Personality', which sounds slightly more in-universe, but that's probably a YMMV thing. Also, I think there's a leaning now toward using 'Accolades' rather than 'Awards and nominations' for those subsections, but AFAIK that hasn't actually been incorporated into the MOS. Frickative 14:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Couple articles

Are there any other characters we can merge into couples> I was thinking Trevor Short and Paul Priestly, and possibly Guizin into Mehmet Osman? Any thoughts welcome.GunGagdin ^Moan 16:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Trevor and Paul seem notable anyway without the need for merging. Are their development and storylines all pretty much the same? Other question is would we list them under S or P? Who would come first in the article title? Is there any OOU on Guizin? Not sure it's going to be worth it just so we can restore an image. Anemone Projectors 21:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Trevor and Paul were marked for merging at one time by another user, but am happy to leave them separate. I do have stuff to include for Guizin, but I just dont think enough for a separate page. It could work if she's merged with Mehmet though.GunGagdin ^Moan 23:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You could have a go at Guizin and Mehmet and see if it works. You could try Trevor and Paul as well if you want, but I think the main reason for merging two characters into one is if one or both are stuck in a list. Anemone Projectors 00:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Characters in lists - splitting

I was wondering, since all the images have been deleted from lists, and Hammersoft made the point about notability and splitting characters, regardless of their duration in the soap (i.e. our rule of automatically listed if they stay under 6 months), should we split off all the characters that meet notability now, regardless of duration?GunGagdin^Moan 16:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Our rule was more to review the situation after 6 months but we've done some before 6 months because they were notable, but always by discussion. Vanessa Gold was one, I think, and all the E20 characters. Which characters do you think could be split off now? Anemone Projectors 18:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I definitely want to separate older characters like Richard Cole and Jules, but will work on them. Others I saw included ones like Danny Miller off th etop of my head. He actually had more prominent storylines than someone like Dr Al, who has his own page.PS can I get your opinion on the setion above AP about couples?GunGagdin^Moan 19:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What about Jodie Gold, Danny Mitchell, Nita Mistry and Jordan Johnson? They've all been regulars. and Theo Kelly? --GSorby Desroid - (Contribs!) 21:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard Cole and Jules Tavernier need work before they can be re-split. You mean Danny Mitchell? We don't have a Danny Miller :P He's the best candidate for splitting but I never saw the point, plus it looks good having him there in the list as the four above him have been split and the few below him aren't that notable. Plus no 2010 images were removed. Nita doesn't have any real-world information other than the actress's name. Jordan also has none. Jodie doesn't have enough, just one small paragraph. Theo is the same, he's been merged for not being notable enough and nothing has changed. Anemone Projectors 21:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Technically any character can have its own page if it meets notability GSorby, and whether one has sufficient notability is very subjective on here. No 2010 images have been removed yet. I dont think Theo merits his own page, but stuff could be found for Nita and if Jodie has sufficient sources she too can have her own page. I will work on some of the other ones.GunGagdin ^Moan 23:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the question is what is considered "suffucient sources"? Jodie has four and two of those are primary sources so don't add to notability. Anemone Projectors 11:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Common Name

Hi, just wondering could we use the "Wikipedia article traffic statistics" tool to determine which name is most serached for on wiki, i.e. Kat Moon or Kat Slater? That could determine the common name.GunGagdin ^Moan 00:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean page view statistics? If not I don't know what that is. But I don't think it would work because of clicks on links, I guess...? Anemone Projectors 00:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that it looked for number of searches. I saw it being used on the Ken Barlow talk page to determine who is more notable and as such who should retain the Ken Barlow page or the DAB, and wondered if the same could be used for common name purposes, but i hadnt considered what you'd said about links.GunGagdin ^Moan 00:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that was comparing two different articles to determine a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not comparing two names for the same topic to determine a common name. I think the existing article name will always have more hits than the redirect. Even a Google search for "Kat Slater" brings up Kat Moon. Anemone Projectors 01:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Tommy and James

I've been thinking about this for a while, does anyone think the two characters could have a separate article? Or maybe split off their section into an article about the storyline, and just have their names redirect to that? There is absolutely LOADS of reception to add. Anemone Projectors 00:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think a storyline article is a good idea. There's probably not as much development info as for the Queen Vic Fire Week or Who Killed Archie? yet, but with all the reception, I think there should easily be enough coverage to justify it. Frickative 01:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I did originally start a draft in my userspace but as the birth was approaching and we had no information on the characters, I just put my entire draft into the list entry. I hate this storyline from Wikipedia's point of view... as Tommy is likely to go back to Kat and Alfie and grow up and he'd require his own article separate from the storyline and James. Anemone Projectors 01:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking that... We could redirect both babies to a storyline article for the time being, but retain a couple of sentences on the character list as we do for main characters with their own articles. Then if/when Tommy ends up with storylines beyond the swap, move his redirect back to the list entry, with a link to the baby swap article.

I swear that seems a lot simpler in my head than it just came out! Frickative 01:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree with all of that. It's basically a case of cross the bridge when we come to it. Could be interesting if Ronnie ran off with Tommy :D Anemone Projectors 01:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What would such an article be named? Anemone Projectors 01:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, based on the Google News hits, maybe either 'EastEnders baby swap storyline' or 'EastEnders cot death storyline'? Or just 'EastEnders baby swap'? We might get an EastEnders Revealed to give it a snappy official title, but probably not until the reveal. Frickative 02:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, strike the cot death suggestion, because obviously it wouldn't be specific to this storyline. Frickative 02:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes there's been another cot death. But the main point of the storyline is the swap, so something about the swap. In my userspace it's called "Kat and Ronnie's baby swap", but I would probably go with "EastEnders baby swap storyline". Anemone Projectors 09:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

See User:AnemoneProjectors/Kat and Ronnie's baby swap. I haven't added anything we don't already have yet. Anne Diamond made a comment on Lorraine this morning that the storyline was offensive because mothers don't swap their babies. She lost a child to cot death 20 years ago. People are failing to realise that it's completely within character for Ronnie, but also that she regrets her actions and tried to reverse the swap. The ratings are interesting though, I thought they'd be down with offended people switching off, but it seems people want to be offended, so more people are watching it! Anemone Projectors 09:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've listed all the sources I have on the talk page of my draft. Anemone Projectors 10:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ace, I've watchlisted your userspace draft and will drop off any extra sources as I come across them. There's an interview with Sam Womack in this week's Inside Soap that a few sources are pulling quotes from - I'll try and type up all the useable bits for inclusion. (The only complaint that I've really understood so far is the one from Mumsnet about recently bereaved mothers being afraid to be around other people's babies, which is awful.) Frickative 20:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Stub type

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature.

Specifically: Category:EastEnders stubs

Dawynn (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Books

We have two articles about EastEnders books: EastEnders – Book One: Home Fires Burning and EastEnders – Book Eleven: Taking Chances. Neither of them are notable. What should we do with them? I also think we should get rid of Template:Infobox EastEnders book and just use the normal {{Infobox book}} - any lost information like dedication can go in prose (if we decide to keep the information). Anemone Projectors 13:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

They could both be merged into a single EastEnders novels articles, if we can find any justification for that article (which would cover all of them)? Otherwise, why keep them? I agree the template definitely needs to go, IMO! Stephenb (Talk) 19:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We have a list of EastEnders books... but I don't think we would need to detail any plots. Relevant information on what characters did in the novels should go in character pages. Anemone Projectors 19:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't thinking of a list or plot dump, but a proper article which outlines the book series development, writing, publishing etc. if we could establish notability - but I read them and threw them away years ago (some were awful and the rest just got contradicted by the series eventually) so I don't even remember their titles, plots or authors! So I doubt whether the article is possible, but I thought I'd suggest it :) Stephenb (Talk) 20:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh. If someone wants to do that they're welcome to. If it's at all possible, which... it probably isn't. We also have a books section in EastEnders spin-offs Anemone Projectors 20:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

AFD: Pooky Quesnel

Pooky Quesnel (Rachel Branning #2) has been nomination for deletion. Can anyone here find any significant third-party reception to any of her roles? NewsUK turns up nothing special. Bradley0110 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: Keep Stephenb (Talk) 19:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Kim Fox

Okay, Does anybody think Kim merits her own page? She's been in the show for over a year and is quite notable? --GSorby ^{Chat with Me!} 17:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Her section in the 2009 character list only has four references though, all from Digital Spy, and a quick Google search doesn't turn up a great deal else. I don't think there's enough coverage out there yet to satisfy the notability guidelines. Frickative 17:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

We do have one bit of reception to add from here but still, that only gives us five references. If we could find maybe three more sources for reception I would say maybe then we could split her off. Anemone Projectors 18:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

i agree!--MayhemMario (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

is kim fox going to get her own page? Well chuffed about jodie thanks guys! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayhemMario (talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, we still only have five references, and four are from Digital Spy, so she's not notable enough still. We need more references. –Anemone Projectors– 16:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

okay!!! Thanks for all the help and did you retype the jodie part i added if you did well done it is really good! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayhemMario (talk • contribs) 17:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I did change it yes. Nice to see someone so enthusiastic on here! –Anemone Projectors– 17:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

yeah im so enthusiastic (cough)........ \So anyhing which needs doing to do with eastenders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayhemMario (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Durations

I am copying a discussion from Talk:Lucy Beale to here:

Ok, so, i remembered just a minute ago that on Bianca Jackson's wikipedia page there was a hidden note next to her duration some time back saying something along the lines of not changing it until official return/departure dates were announced, which means that if she were to have left in 2010, and returned in 2011, the duration would have been changed! And Bianca was always going to return too! SO... this is the same thing for Lucy! Why not change the duration for Lucy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.14.237 (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This needs a wider discussion because it affects Tanya Branning as well. Personally I don't think the duration should be changed in these circumstances but we need to sort it out once and for all. Anemone Projectors 12:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss! Obviously if someone leaves in 2011 and returns in 2011 we don't change the duration. My argument with Lucy was that the character wasn't axed and was always going to return. The same technically applies with Bianca. With Tanya, we weren't going to change the duration until we found out it would be quite a long time until she returned the next year. But again, she was always going to return. I'm in two minds about it. Anemone Projectors 19:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I am also in two minds. Splitting the duration is accurate, because it shows that for a period the character was not on-screen and not doing so is misleading in a way. However, a character might be gone for say 6 months at the start of a year and return the same year. For this we would not add a break in duration, but if the same character left in October and returned in March, we'd split the duration even though the same time period lapsed. I think that if it's a planned break and we know the character is still employed, then dont bother adding a break.GunGagdin ^Moan 20:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, like with maternity leave, the actor still has a contract which hasn't ended, but in Jean's case the contract ended and a new one started a few months later, so we put a break. Technically, this would also affect Jim Branning... But does it also apply to Lucy Beale? Anemone Projectors 20:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we know for definite that Jean was not coming back all along? It may have been that they had not been able to agree to terms of a new contract yet. Her departure seemed rushed, was it changed when they realised they were keeping Jean? With Lucy, the actor left and hence a new contract was thrashed out with a new actress who isnt even employed yet. I think it's OK to leave the break. She's being reintroduced with a new actress therefore the initial contract lapsed and she officially left, regardless whether they had plans to bring her back all along. Sickness and maternity leave are a different story. The odd one will be Peggy. She left on sick leave circa 2003 and was away for ages. It was announced as a break, yet when Kat Hutchinson took over, there were rumours they were not inviting her back, and Babs even said on Paul O'Grady that they were yet to finalise a return. But technically, she was on sick leave all that time.GunGagdin ^Moan 21:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if it's been done for others, then it should be done for Lucy. And also... maybe we should consider duration changes. some soaps do things like this ... "1999, 2000, 2000, 2001-02, 2002-10" ... they have breaks in the same years. So like Denise Fox's ... she left in 2008 and returned 6 months later in 2008, we could put "2006-08, 2008-". i'm only suggesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.14.237 (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be borne in mind, though, that the infobox is for imparting essential information about the characters. "1999, 2000, 2000, 2001-02, 2002-10" would probably be baffling to most casual readers, when "1999-2010" is equally accurate. Brief breaks and sabbaticals, imo, are better explained through prose in the body of the article. Frickative 23:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

you're right, it is simpler, and in no way am i insisting that we do it. But i think for Lucy, the duration should be changed, because it was a departure, either way!

Jean's departure was announced a very long time ago, and her return was only very recent. You could be right Gungadin but we have to go by what we know. ... We would never put "1999, 2000, 2000, 2001-02, 2002-10" anyway, we would put "1999, 2000, 2001-10" because that's just the way things work, it's not just a Wikipedia thing (is it?). I think Frickative makes an interesting yet complicated point. EastEnders documentary shows always give a character's duration as from their first to last appearance, and don't include any breaks, even if it was five years. I don't like that idea really. So it looks like we're starting to agree that long breaks should be considered, i.e. Tanya, Bianca (except she leaves and returns in the same year so we don't change it) and Lucy. Suspension probably shouldn't count as it's usually a short period. Illness in Windsor's case I agree with leaving it as it is as it was a very long break and yes she may never have come back. John Bardon also may never have come back, but I would support changing his dates to continuous. Anemone Projectors 23:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

So what are we gonna do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAW (talk • contribs) 23:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

i think if it's just a planned hiatus, such as someone being given time off for panto aka Letitia Dean every year she was in it, then it should not count as a departure. Speaking of Sharon, she's an odd one for duration too. And her name should be Watts I think under common name, altho that's not really relevant for this discussion. :) GunGagdin^Moan 23:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

But Lucy's departure wasn't planned. It just came up one day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.14.237 (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Lucy's was a hiatus though. But then the same could be said of Tanya and Jean. Anemone Projectors 00:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

so what shall we do??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.14.237 (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Be patient and keep discussing until we reach consensus! Anemone Projectors 01:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well i heard the other day that Lucy won't be returning until April, so by then she will have been out for 8 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.14.237 (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The amount time she's gone is irrelevant at the moment, unless we put an arbitrary time limit on breaks that we include or don't. But how would we decide on it? It would be arbitrary, which is bad. So we have to either go by the type of break or decide on a case by case basis. Anemone Projectors 02:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Case by case i think. Also, IMO, i think 3 months justifies a duration change. I.E. Departing in November, Returning in February. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.14.237 (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I dont really see that actors maternity/paternity leave should constitute a break in duration. After all, the actors are still under contract in EE, they continue to be paid etc. If we are going to change this we should also take a look at Denise Johnson and Max Branning, as the actors who played them also had breaks for maternity/paternity leave. In fact, we could go all the way back and include Kat Moon and Mo Slater in the discussion too. i dont agree about a case by case basis, we shopuld have one rule. Lucy to me is a separate issue as the actor ended their contract therefore there is a definate break in duration. Bleaney (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, with Lucy it was an end of contract followed by a brand new contract (that may not have even started yet). Should we go by contracts then? Meaning Lucy and Jean get a break, but maternity doesn't? I like this idea. What about illness if they don't know if the character will ever return? Anemone Projectors 20:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am assuming actors must get sick pay/leave if they are on contract. Or are they only paid by appearance now? If not then being sick does not mean a termination of contract. I say we go by contract too. John Bardon was seemingly still within contract when he was off sick as they got him in every so often.GunGagdin ^Moan 21:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I would assume they get statutory sick pay. It would still be part of the contract regardless of how they are paid. There was the whole thing about limiting the number of actors per episode so it costs less, so maybe they are paid per episode, who knows? So this would mean removing the breaks for Jim and Tanya, adding a break for Lucy and leaving in the break for Jean. Does it affect any others? Anemone Projectors 22:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

i don't think it affects any others, i think this is pretty much solved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.3.102 (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OH, and Oscar Branning! His duration is 2007-09, 2010-, only because he left with Tanya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.3.102 (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not solved because not everyone has agreed yet, so please refrain from updating articles at the moment. Anemone Projectors 23:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me for butting in but I was only thinking this the other day Jean Slater's page currently reads: 2004, 2005, 2006–10, 2011—, now she's only temporarily left so therefore perhaps we ought to leave it as 2004, 2005, 2006—? whats do we think --87.254.70.218 (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We need to make some sort of a rule, and if we are going by contract then Jean, despite ony being absent for 4ish months should get a broken duration. Her departure seems pretty final here in this interview http://www.digitalspy.ie/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a219318/wright-eastenders-has-been-a-privilege.html Does anyone know if her new contract was finalised before she finished filming on her old one? we have several options and perhaps we need to vote and none seem ideal?

a) Duration covers time on-screen and any significant break (we'll need to define what a significant break is) is specified in the duration even if they are still in contract during the break. Therefore, Denise's absence due to Parish's maternity leave would be included in duration even though it was scheduled and temporary.

b) We go by contract and contract alone, meaning that we only break duration if a contract is terminated. This means Jim's duration would be break-less, despite him not appearing onscreen for huge gaps, and Jean's would contain a break, despite her only being absent for 4 months.

c) duration is scrapped alltogether, and we use prose to illustrate durations. Infoboxes only contain first and last appearances.

d) Duration considered on case by case basis. No rule. We discuss each on talk pages and make a consensus for each page

Feel free to add other options, then perhaps we can all vote and then go with majority?GunGagdin^Moan 14:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as we know, Gillian Wright had finished filming before they announced her return and we can only assume she had finished filming before she signed a new contract. Options are good. Maybe we should take a vote. The only problem with option a is defining a significant break. Anemone Projectors 15:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, perhaps when we finalise options we can do a stand alone vote and ask all wiki project members to vote. Have added a 4th option.GunGagdin ^Moan 17:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Re significant break. Unless guest etc, contracts for regulars are usually 6 months at the least, but as we know they can go up to about 2 years. Perhaps a significant break would be 6 months and over? GunGagdin^Moan 17:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I know that Sam Attwater, Ricky Norwood and Emer Kenny were each initially offered 3-month contracts but when Bunmi Mojekwu was signed up for EastEnders as well they were all extended to 6. So some contracts are shorter. Anemone Projectors 17:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think option A in AP's options is best. and what do you mean by "significant break"? how long they are gone for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.3.102 (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

They're Gungadin's options, not mine. She suggested 6 months be considered a significant break, saying it's the shortest contract, and then I pointed out that 3 months is. Did you carry on reading? Anemone Projectors 21:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh right, they are Gungadin's! My apologies! I also think 3 months is a significant break, it's a quarter of a year . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.3.102 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm vacillating on whether this is a viable idea or not, but I'd also suggest e) Duration covers time in the show broadly, with gaps only when an absence exceeds more than a calendar year.

For instance, a character who took a break in 2011 and returned in 2012 would still have appeared in both 2011 and 2012, so for example '2006-2013' would technically be as accurate a duration as '2006-2011; 2012-2013'. However, if the same character took a break/departed in 2011 and didn't return until 2013, then '2006-2011; 2013' would be the only accurate way of expressing that.

On a semi-related note, I think that for past characters whose duration was continuous from first to last appearance, the parameter should be considered unnecessary. Frickative 22:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

but that wouldn't be accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.3.102 (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

How so? Please remember to sign your replies by typing four tildes (~). Frickative 22:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Because they could be out of the show for six months from November to May, which would call for a duration change I.E. 1999, 2001-09, 2010- 99.243.3.102 (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

But what calls for a duration change is exactly what we're discussing here, and as of yet has no consensus. I'm just providing another suggestion. Frickative 22:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

you're right, sorry. 99.243.3.102 (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries :) As I said, I'm not fully sold on the suggestion myself - just wanted to throw another one out there! I was leaning towards option b, defining duration by contract, but it occurred to me that we almost never have contract information for recurring characters, so it would only really work for main ones. Frickative 22:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I would presume recurring characters are contracted per episode or group of episodes. I quite like your suggestion Frickative. So this would mean Jim Branning is continuous, and would also make Sal Martin's duration 1996-98, 2001-04, 2007-10. I do like this idea. I'm not sure it's the best one though. It affects a lot more characters. What about recurring characters like Maria de Costa for example? Or would we just do it for main characters? I'm also thinking of characters like Marcus Christie and Ritchie Scott. Anemone Projectors 22:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Gah, it is really complicated! When I said about contracts for the recurring characters, I had Jordan Johnson in mind, where even if he returns later in the year we'll probably never know if he picked up a new contract or just had time off for exams or something. (Though on reflection, he might well be considered a main anyway, idek.) Looking at Marcus Christie as an example, I'm not sure my suggestion would work for recurring characters - replacing '1990, 1991, 1993, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004' with '1990-91; 1993; 1996; 1998; 2000-04' may imply that his tenure in the later years was more significant, and could be misleading. Frickative 00:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if we decide on using your suggestion, we should only do it for regular characters, including children who live in Walford. Jordan's one of those characters that we won't find out if they leave, like Becca Swanson. I think Harry and Grace are the same. Although Becca was on screen a lot, I don't think she was considered a main character, so they never announced her arrival or departure. They always announce arrivals and departures for main characters. But these "semi-regular" (we call them regular in our articles) characters could have the ongoing durations, where characters making one-off appearances year after year (Maria de Costa, Marcus Christie) maybe shouldn't. Anemone Projectors 01:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(undent)I do like option E actually. I think it will make it much less cluttered, but I agree that for recurring characters it wont work. We could make a separate 'episode' field for recurring characters, and we can list the episode dates they appeared in, which would remove the need to specify that in duration and is actually more specific than duration as it gives precise dates. Obviously we can only do this with recurring characters because there would be thousands of episodes for characters like Ian Beale.GunGagdin ^Moan 15:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

We still have the "appeared" field we used in place of first and last when a character only made one appearance. Using "appeared" adds "Appears on", and using "only" adds "Appears in". We actually already do this for "Other" characters in the dates column. I think if we decide to use option E but not for recurring characters, we should leave the recurring ones as they are, at least for now. Option E does sound very good and it means we don't need to decide on what is considered a "significant" break and we don't need to know about contracts. Anemone Projectors 15:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

i like E too :). 173.33.132.13 (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Shall we take a quick vote? Anemone Projectors 09:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that contracts are (mostly) unknowable, all we can reasonably do is go on screen appearances, and so Frickative's pragmatic option (e) gets my vote Stephenb (Talk) 10:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes then. I've never started up a straw poll before, anyone know the proper way to do it? Anemone Projectors 10:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's Wikipedia:Straw polls policy which was never adopted because, apparently, everything other than just discussing something endlessly until a "consensus" is formed from the last group standing is EVIL!!! (I'm joking, partly :) ). I think generally you just appeal for discussion (here) among the project members (perhaps a friendly message on their Talk pages?), and then make a proposal. If there isn't a significant objection, and there's enough support, after a period of time, it's done. Well, that's my suggestion! Stephenb (Talk) 19:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I see polls all the time though, or do I? We seem to be leaning towards option E anyway. You like E, I like E, our IP friend likes E, Gungadin likes E and I'm pretty sure Frickative likes E since she suggested it! So we all like E. There aren't that many active members left. Anemone Projectors 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I tend to agree. I was really suggesting leaving a note for all those listed as Active on Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders/Participants to let them know of the discussion. If they're still active, they can then participate if they want to, otherwise, it would be a polite notice of the policy being enacted! It's only fair, it's easy to miss this conversation if you're not watching this page (although it would be daft not to be, that can't be guaranteed!). Stephenb (Talk) 08:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha, Sharon Marshall has just said that Jean will be back on Tuesday for the funeral, and she is. I never noticed this. Perhaps this was originally her final appearance. It's now very confusing. Anemone Projectors 11:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

SO what exactly are we gonna do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.3.102 (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We're gonna stop asking that question every five minutes and learn some patience. Anemone Projectors 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Woah,ok99.243.3.102 (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if Michael Moon's duration is split, then Lucy's should be too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAW (talk • contribs) 11:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

His duration wasn't meant to be split anyway, I've reverted it. But you've clearly completely ignored the entire discussion. Anemone Projectors 11:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No, i haven't. i know that option e has been chosen, but i was just making a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.132.13 (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing has been chosen, and it was a completely pointless point. You know it's being discussed. Just because something is on one article doesn't necessarily mean it should be on another. If option E was chosen, then Michael would have been changed anyway. Sorry but I can't see any sense in what you said. Anemone Projectors 16:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

STILL NOTHING? And i think it was a valid point, I saw that Michael's duration was split and he hasn't even taken official leave, so i thoght... hmmm... weird, they'll split the duration for someone who hasn't even taken official leave, but not for someone who has actually left the show! It found it strange, i didn't realise it was "vandalism" until after the fact. And until i said something this are hasn't been touched in like 4 days! It takes me less time to figure out my maths. and i am not good at math! Just choose already! I'm not discussing this anymore. so it's up to the rest of you! TheAW (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoa there... It's kinda pointless changing Michael now and Tanya was gone for quite a while. She had taken maternity leave and didn;t retyrn for about 8-9 months --GSorby ^{Chat with Me!} 16:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion break

So has anything been officially chosen yet? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.3.102 (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the discussion has died. So let's do this. PLEASE STATE BELOW WHICH OF THE OPTIONS A TO E THAT YOU SUPPORT.

a) Duration covers time on-screen and any significant break (we'll need to define what a significant break is) is specified in the duration even if they are still in contract during the break. Therefore, Denise's absence due to Parish's maternity leave would be included in duration even though it was scheduled and temporary.

b) We go by contract and contract alone, meaning that we only break duration if a contract is terminated. This means Jim's duration would be break-less, despite him not appearing onscreen for huge gaps, and Jean's would contain a break, despite her only being absent for 4 months.

c) duration is scrapped alltogether, and we use prose to illustrate durations. Infoboxes only contain first and last appearances.

d) Duration considered on case by case basis. No rule. We discuss each on talk pages and make a consensus for each page

e) Duration covers time in the show broadly, with gaps only when an absence exceeds more than a calendar year.

Support option E Anemone Projectors 15:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Support option E Stephenb (Talk) 18:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

EGunGagdin ^Moan 21:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Support E --GSorby ^{Chat with Me!} 22:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Support E :) (With the proviso that the parameter is considered unnecessary duplication for those past characters where there's no difference between duration and first/last dates.) Frickative 05:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is something we should discuss later :-) Anemone Projectors 17:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Support E Bleaney (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. did we agree this is only for regular characters and not recurring ones? Or do we need more discussion? ;-) Anemone Projectors 17:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Seven days have passed and everyone supported option E so it looks like we're going for option E! Yay! :-) Anemone Projectors 19:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarificaton

Just to clarify, if a regular character makes a one-off appearance in 2011 and another in 2012, do we still put 2011-12? Such as Sonia Fowler or Jan Hammond? I'm still confused about recurring characters. Anemone Projectors 08:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)