# Talk:Teddy Mitchell

The presentation of character duration must remain consistent across Eastenders character pages. 
The reverts to "since 'year'" are incorrect, grammatically inaccurate, visually ugly and not concise or consistent with how character durations are represented across all soap. This is not the first time I've had to make this correction.  GuyFromEE (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

As pointed out—several times, mind you, which have been ignored—per MOS:DATETOPRES/MOS:SINCE it states: Except on pages that are inherently time-sensitive and updated regularly (e.g. the "Current events" portal), terms such as now, today, currently, present, to date, so far, soon, upcoming, ongoing, and recently should usually be avoided in favor of phrases such as during the 2010s, since 2010, and in August 2020. Wording can usually be modified to remove the "now" perspective: not she is the current director but she became director on 1 January 2024; not 2010–present but beginning in 2010 or since 2010. As such, 2024 is the present-tense, plus, the edit also fails to adhere to MOS:NDASH. Manual of style is built to be ever-evolving and followed. There is no consensus at WP:SOAPS that overrides the MOS that stands. Discussion should be held at the WikiProject for Soap Operas. livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
But not when in complete contradiction to established presentation formats consistent with other current and past characters on the show.
Phil Mitchell as an example "2005-present" not "Since 2005"
You're contradicting established, consistent continuity in presentation style. GuyFromEE (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Again, the MOS stands and is to be followed. Choosing to ignore the MOS, from discussions at the Soap Opera Project, is not founded. And I've yet to be presented with a community consensus that was previously-founded. Again, 2024 is the present tense, so "since 2024" is to be used, or years are to be removed altogether, as the first appearance date (sans final) proves the character is still appearing (as it would be at yearly character pages). And, at Phil Mitchell it states 2005–present (follows the continually ignored MOS:NASH), not 2005-present (which ignores MOS:NDASH). Again, MOS is ever-evolving. livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
"Since 2024" is not the agreed upon MOS when judged on literally every other Eastenders character wikipedia article.
"Year-" is still far more accurate than "Since 'year'"
Stick to the consistent presentation agreed/used across all UK soap characters and Australian soap characters. GuyFromEE (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Once again, you've yet to provide a community-agreed consensus, which while can challenge the MOS, it cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. MOS stands and is to be followed. It's the guideline of Wikipedia. You're ignoring everything being stated to repeat the same, exact statement over-and-over again, which in fact, the statement is wrong. MOS > community consensus > what you're stating (with, again, no proof of community discussion provided). Seems like a strong case of ownership right now. livelikemusic (TALK!) 19:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
The agreed upon census is in the visual evidence of all Eastenders character pages.
Not one of them use "Since 'year'" including other soap operas, even Australian soap operas. They all use a standard, concise, specific visual layout of "Year-present". It's not a strong case of ownership when you're the one going against the standard layout for character duration that is used across all characters. Stick to that layout/agreed presentation when creating/editing Eastenders character pages.
It can't be a case of ownership when I'm simply following the given format.  GuyFromEE (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
And refrain from removing discussions on this topic please. Archiving/deleting discussions is not healthy to a creative conversation.  GuyFromEE (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
That's not a consensus, then, which means the MOS stands, and you reverting against MOS is a warn-able offense. The MOS-defined policy is what must be followed, and editing against it, especially without a discussion, is violation of that. Period. Point blank. And, on top of that, no discussion has been removed from this talk page, for the record, despite an unassuming of good faith. Again, I am following MOS and not ignoring it like others. As previously-explained, MOS is an ever-evolving, community-built discussion point. At present, the MOS stands where it is, and refusal to accept that is violating Wikipedia's rules to be followed. As outlined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style, it states:  If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence. Which would mean the MOS has immediate weight over a non-discussion decision, for which editors have continued to ignore the manual of style. livelikemusic (TALK!) 21:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm following the defined policy thank you very much.
i am also following the consistent visual representation of all characters and their duration across all the articles. Ruby Allen for example keeps getting changed and has inconsistent duration (two different ones) presentation. Her previous stints using the agreed upon, consistent presentation while @EEFishHam continues to persist with using a presentation style no one else uses making the articles look amateur as a result.  GuyFromEE (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
You're actively vandalising articles now.
Enough is enough. GuyFromEE (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)