Talk:Lauren Branning

message: god, please upload a better photo!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.11.130 (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: OK, as well all know Lauren temporarily left 5 Albert Square tonight along with Oscar and Tanya.
Ever since then her page has been subjected to some sort of edit war on the matter.  People are removing her address saying she doesn't stay there any longer, people have also been putting 2009 as her final appearance and so on.  I have googled this and I can find no evidence whatsoever that Madeline Duggan has left EastEnders for good which makes me think that Lauren will be returning at some stage.  
Also, as Max and Abi have decided to stay residing at number 5, she can still count this as her home, which is why I think that on her infobox it should still read "Home: 5 Albert Square".  I don't remember it changing when she moved in with Jack for a while or when she moved in with foster parents.  Why should now be any different?
Because of all the edit warring I did actually ask for the page to be fully protected tonight meaning that nobody would be able to edit it other than administrators.  As it is the admin have decided to semi-protect the page meaning that established confirmed users will be able to make edits.  However this is being watched and may be upgraded to full protection if the edit warring continues and/or gets worse.  Hence the reason why I'm now opening a discussion here to try and stop this happening.
If you have a grievance about how the main article is being edited then please discuss it here.  Thank you for your co-operation --5 albert square (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with you, she would still be classed as living in that property. I think she may come back, and it has never been officially announced otherwise. If it is proven over the next few weeks/months that Lauren will not be returning to Albert Square (well, to that house) before Tanya does, then perhaps it should be removed as her residence, but until that happens, she still lives there. W93 (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Tanya hasn't left for good, so therefore Lauren and Oscar have not left for good. Only Tanya's departure was announced so maybe Lauren will return sooner. But yeah, let's do what W93 said. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The actress is taking her GCSE's in 2010, most characters don't need an explained departure but because Lauren is at the forefront of many of her parents storyline she left with Tanya, and she does not appear in the rest of 2009 as spoilers etc show, so her duration should be 2006-2009 and when she reuturns in 2010 it should be 2006-2009, 2010— Alex250P (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because the character does not appear in the rest of 2009 does not give her official leave. If a character is not seen on-screen for a month (for example Jim Branning has not been seen for a few months), their duration should not be changed. W93 (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: June Brown went on temporary leave to star in Calendar Girls but we didn't change her duration because she didn't leave the cast. It should really only be used when actors leave the cast, if they've quit or haven't had their contracts renewed, for example. Technically Jo Joyner hasn't left the cast but because she's not expected back until next autumn, we've made an exception. Lauren could be back sooner. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to think that she will be back sooner.  There's still nothing to hint that Madeleine Duggan has left the cast --5 albert square (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If, as we've heard, Tanya won't come back until next autumn, that's a hell of a long time for Lauren not to appear. Oscar I can understand as he's just a toddler who doesn't speak but Lauren is a main character and the actress has no reason to go. So I think she'll come back sooner. Duggan hasn't left the cast, and neither has Joyner. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Tanya and Lauren will both appear in the Christmas Day episode. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, good, it's as I thought then, just a "show turn" --5 albert square (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Tanya is also reappearing at Christmas but so far up to 4 January I haven't seen either of them appearing again. But I still can't see Lauren staying away as long as Tanya will. Maybe some of Tanya's scenes have been filmed in advance, like they did for Dot. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, message has been sent to the admin that locked the page to request that the page is unlocked again, however this is on the assumption that the edit warring does not pick up from where it left off --5 albert square (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lauren's Temporary Departure

message: Here are a load of sources all mainly from the 'Lauren's Diarys' thing on the website....
* (Video)
*(Video)
*(Video)
*(Video)
*(Video)
*(Video)
*(Video)
*(Video)
*(Video)
*(Video)
*(Video)
*(Video)
* (A extra scene from Xmas)
* A new storyline for Lauren.
Sorry i forgot to say... shall we add a 'related media' section like Danielle Jones? MayhemMario (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not sources, it's her spin off, that I already added yesterday. It's mentioned in development, doesn't need a new section IMO. –anemoneprojectors– 12:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: How come it has been removed from the infobox?GunGagdinMoan 16:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's because it's been moved further down the article.--5 albert square (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My doing, I thought it would better down with casting and creation :-) GSorby - Talk! 19:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of having two images in the infobox is to show two actors. –anemoneprojectors– 12:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: By that, are you wanting it back in the infobox AP?--5 albert square (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was going to move it back anyway. I think I prefered it there but if others prefer it lower down it's ok with me. –anemoneprojectors– 13:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should stay in the infobox.GunGagdinMoan 14:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm kind of leaning towards putting it in the infobox too, simply because all character infoboxes that have had more than one actor/actress are that way.  It would be good to keep them all the same.  I did play about with the article a bit to see if we could get away with having it in the article twice so in the infobox and further down but then it was too much like a Duggan overload :S--5 albert square (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah much better in the infobox. GSorby, it's lazy editing not to update the reationale afterward. It clearly states infobox only in it's fair use..RaintheOne BAM 19:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Rain is 100% correct. –anemoneprojectors– 12:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duggan's pic 

message: An image used in this article, File:101129 102650 46Tue16Nov-1-.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:101129 102650 46Tue16Nov-1-.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: I don't think we should add Kirsty as Lauren's stepmother, since a) she's not a mother figure to Lauren, b) the whole "you're my stepmother, that's weird" lasted one episode while Lauren was drunk, c) Lauren has Tanya as her mother. Perhaps (perhaps) if when Tanya's gone and if Kirsty stays and they become a proper family unit, then Kirsty can be added. –anemoneprojectors– 12:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Bleaney (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course, if Max and Kirsty's divorce is finalised then she won't be added at all :D –anemoneprojectors– 19:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I'm getting sick of reverting the edits that add her!  She should only be added, in my opinion, to Lauren, Oscar and Abi's infoboxes if she becomes a stepmother in the way that Jane was to Lucy, Peter and Bobby.  Though she has signed divorce papers so might actually not come to that at all!!--5 albert square (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kirsty as stepmother 

message: In the storyline section, there is a notice that more sources are removed. However, in WP:SOAPS, in the storylines sourcing section, it states that "As agreed by WikiProject participants, storyline sections do not require sourcing, as the programme itself acts as the source. These sections can be verified by watching the series." Hence, can the notice be removed? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've removed the tag. I looked back at the page history and the tag was added by a user I do not recognise, so I can only assume they are not a soap editor, and are unfamiliar with WP:SOAPS' guidelines. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 18:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thank you! Just wanted to double check :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storyline Sourcing