Talk:David Wicks

message: Does anyone know if he's Back for Good...? or is it just a quick "hello and goodbye"? —78.151.42.36 (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I havent read many spoliers for a long time, so I dont know and therfore cannot answer your question :D MayhemMario 17:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's been any indication that Michael French intends to leave Casualty, so it's likely just a guest return. Frickative 17:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back for Good??  

message: Someone has erased the tag because this article is thought to be good as "it is". However, I must disagree with that reasoning. This article consists of fictional elements, and Wikipedia treats fiction in a manner of encyclopedia standards. Even "Development" alone cannot help balance between real-world and fiction. This article needs context of reception on and impact from this character, and non-primary sources should help. Is he a "bad boy", a "bad father", a "good guy", "likeable", "unlikeable", or something else, according to sources? --George Ho (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs reception and impact 

message: What was up with the old image? He doesn't look that different tbh, he's one of those men that time is kind too. The image is meant to identify the reader with the subject, I think that is best done with an old image from his first run - the run he is notable for. At point, right now - I don't think there should be two non-free images at play.Rain the 1 03:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What about :File:Michael French Nick Jordan BBC.jpg? Does he look the same... or older... and handsome, too? --George Ho (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no that's Nick Jordon.. it wouldn't be right. Do you think he is handsome?Rain the 1 03:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Off-topic, but yes!!! Well, I know he's Nick Jordan. However, does Michael French look different from 1996? --George Ho (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We can go off topic now and again. :p You can tell he has aged a little. .. still think a 90's image is better in this case. :)Rain the 1 04:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How is the case of David Wicks different from of Pauline Fowler? Easily, she has haircut; Wicks did, as well. Maybe an image from 1993 can help more than from 1996; trying still to find one. --George Ho (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Per User talk:George Ho#David Wicks, his staying or leaving is not that controversial; however, I have seen edits that may claim his staying or leaving. Well... I removed the dash because we haven't reached the end of 2012 yet and because... the only source is the primary source and because the speculation that this character is either staying or leaving is OR. --George Ho (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We dont always get sources which clearly state if a character in EastEnders is staying or departing. In the case of David, we didn't even have official confirmation from the BBC that he was returning! In these cases we can only assume if a character is currently appearing that they will continue to do so until we have a source saying otherwise. If we assume this we always put 2012- or 2011-. Bleaney (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is still January, and Winter 2013 hasn't come up yet. Why having a dash there? Isn't there a policy or guideline against these assumptions? --George Ho (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He's definitely leaving on 13 January 2012. This DigitalSpy article for the upcoming soap episode on 16 January 2012 says that Bianca is confused about David being gone, and he's no longer mentioned or credited in the foreseeable episodes after Pat's funeral. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/spoilers/a357762/ricky-desperately-tries-to-save-his-marriage.html JackJackUK (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, what you mean is his last credited appearance is 13 January 2012. In theory he could appear again in forthcoming spoilers at anytime. Yes I think we all know deep down he's not returning, but weve had no official sayso from the BBC. In answer to George, it's not an assumption to add a dash. It simply means that the character is continuing to currently appear. Bleaney (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, why not "January 2012—"? --George Ho (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Bleaney that's exactly the same as saying he's no longer mentioned or credited after 13 January 2012 ;/. DigitalSpy upcoming soap episodes summaries don't even mention David Wicks. JackJackUK (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, hang on boys dont shoot me! We have to try and avoid original research as much as possible, and im only following conventions on here that have been follwed for ages. Generally we dont report a characters arrival OR departure unless we have an official source from the BBC. This is annoying as sometimes the beeb dont tell us. However we can only go on official sources. David is credited in upcoming episodes by the BBC, THEREFORE he is a current character. Unless we have confirmation from the BBC etc that he has departed we have to go by this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleaney (talk • contribs) 20:19, 10 January 2012‎ (UTC)
I have noticeboards: WP:ORN, WP:RSN, and WP:COIN. If both (I mean both, not either) of you want to take this issue to either noticeboard, then let's do so. --George Ho (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Just to clear things up (official source coming your way), Sharon Marshall on ITV's This Morning said (not exact quote, something like this), "Wicksy will be with us for a couple of weeks"- On 3 January 2012. MayhemMario 20:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont but can I suggest if it is to be discussed that we talk it out on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders as this may have a bearing on other EastEnders pages. Bleaney (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  that. --George Ho (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case it's needed, here's a ref for David's departure - . - JuneGloom  Talk 20:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staying or leaving? No sources yet? 

message: Jane Reynolds Reception — M.Mario (T/C)  18:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Brian Wicks did not adopt David. He is his stepdad and technically should not be included on his infobox because he never shared any episodes with him (as per consensus). David and Simon Beale took the 'Wicks' name because their mother had remarried. You cannot actually adopt a child unless their parents die or you are the parent on the birth certificate or if the child is given up for adoption. Pete still had some contact with his sons, he remained their father but they took Brian's name. In fact David and Simon hardly knew Brian, if you watched Lou's funeral, Simon did not really know Brian and hardly seen him and hated him when they met (he called him a 'four letter word'). It is about time people stuck with facts rather than disregard experience and expertise.--86.151.240.132 (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian has been removed. Bleaney (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought this was a very civil way of putting your point across, until I got to "It is about time people stuck with facts rather than disregard experience and expertise." There's no need for that, especially when the information was probably added by editors who are no longer editing Wikipedia. But at least you're now accepting the consensus. –anemoneprojectors– 10:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Brian Wicks