Talk:Mo Harris

message: Does she actually have a brother called Stan or is this another rumour like the "Melissa and Dominic Porter" one? (Which I removed, by the way) Trampikey 20:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No reference to him on the BBC site... removed as unreferenced. Sweetie Petie 21:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stan

message: PMSL! I find that so amusing  --GunGagdinMoan 23:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mumblebum harris"  

message: Are there any episodes or dates that they have appeared in. Should they be classed as minor characters?--Spock a (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If they appeared, they can be added to a minor list, if not, then they cant be. Afraid I have no idea if they have done or not.GunGagdinMoan 19:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They've never appeared on-screen. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 21:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, Chinese Walter did appear. He's here. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I'm pretty sure he's an unseen character. I don't think they'll ever cast him. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Fat Elvis appeared in 2015 and I'm glad I wrote that, as I've now added Tammy to his infobox! –anemoneprojectors– 11:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fat Elvis" and "Chinese Walter" 

message: Yoo hoo, AP, great work condensing, but a lot of Mo's backstory seems to have been removed. Do you not think it's necessary to include?--GunGagdinMoan 08:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe, but I don't like those backstory sections very much so I tried to get as much of the most important stuff in the storylines bit. I guess I removed stuff from her bubble episode, which in hindsight is wrong but I don't think that belongs in a backstory section as it was actually seen in an episode. Perhaps we should be changing "storylines" to "appearances" like in Jack Harkness and then we can talk what she got up to in the two spin-offs. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should still count as a backstory because it happened before the Mo as we know her appeared in the soap, and it was just shown in flashbacks. It could always be said as an opener, Mo's backstory prior to 2000 has been revealed via dialogue and via flshback scenes in the spin-off episode Pat and Mo?GunGagdinMoan 11:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that sounds good. P.S. I really want them to make more spin-off episodes! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backstory 

message: Normally when a character has been in the series for 10 years or more, we change their importance from mid to high, but it feels like Mo's never had a major storyline in all that time, so shall we leave her as she is? –anemoneprojectors– 14:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Aww poor Mo! Bleaney (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Noooo, change poor Mo to High!! GSorby – Ping 18:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done :-) –anemoneprojectors– 13:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on Mo tonight when I'm at home to give me something to do, most websites are blocked here. I got a lot of free time so I guess I'll start doing some list work :-) GSorby – Ping 13:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Woo! Remember, many of the lists are still written in past tense :-) –anemoneprojectors– 14:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, of course! I've started the 1989 list. GSorby – Ping 14:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: Should Mo be considered a recurring character? She barely appears these days save for some light comedy and hasn't had a story line in a very long time. This, plus her rare appearances, should cause her to lose her status as a regular? 81.20.179.232 (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, in my opinion, not unless we have a source to say she is recurring. She does seem to be under contract, however few her appearances are. Bleaney (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Mo's always been a regular character, and even if she was now recurring, we would have to represent her entire time in the show, meaning we should still say she's regular. But there's no evidence to suggest she's become a recurring character, as Bleaney states. Sometimes a character just doesn't appear as much for a while. –anemoneprojectors– 13:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

text: She's clearly taken a break just now. We don't know what they have in store for a character. –anemoneprojectors– 10:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regular or recurring 

message: For the sake of posterity (and in case she never appears again!), does anyone know the date Mo appeared this year? Also, as it's her single appearance in a long period of absence I would suggest that it is worth briefly noting her story involvement in this episode. U-Mos (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree, I dont know the date. You know, Mo going from regular to recurring is a real bind for us on here. I dont think its ever happened that way, normally the only reason that regular characters become recurring is that they have effectively left, and are making one-off guest appearances. In reality she is more recurring than the likes of Mr Lister and Reverend Stevens, but it looks like we will have to keep her as regular, otherwise the precedent will cause problems with other character pages. However, i'm sure Laila Morse has basically stated in the press that she is only appearing in EE occasionally as she is looking after her sick son. Surely if we can we should add and reference this to the article? Bleaney (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've managed to uncover that she popped up in a single scene on May 10 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01sc2m1), collecting rent from Kat et al. Also, apparently her autobiography reveals that she's been out of contract since July 2012 and has thus been called up as a guest character as and when wanted (apparently, not often) since: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1799298. I'll make a couple of edits to the article in accordance. U-Mos (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think though it is important that its mentioned that the reason her contact was not renewed was because she is (or was) looking after her ill son... she was not gotten rid of as far as I can tell. I'm sure she mentioned this in her autobiography and one of the papers serialised it so there must be a source...Bleaney (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this story about her trying to save her son, though I don't know how helpful that is.  I also found this story which states her son was jailed in May 2012 for 8 months for stealing her car etc apparently.  So he would have been due for release around about December/January time.  I think it's too much of a coincidence that it was around then that Mo went AWOL.  Maybe EastEnders have given her time out to deal with her family issues but at the same time Mo is not such a big character that she needs to be written out on screen?--5 albert square (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I was thinking. Could it be a situation like when the actor who played Jim Branning disappeared beacuse he had a stroke? Or when Pat Butcher didnt feature for about a year because the actress who played her was ill? Bleaney (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Bleaney I'm thinking it's exactly like that.  When I did that Google search I could only find 3 papers talking about this, the two I've mentioned above and the Daily Fail.  I did find her book on Amazon it's only a preview thing and doesn't mention her sons drug addiction in that great detail.  However that still doesn't mean anything really.  It could even be that EastEnders or Laila herself have asked the media not to report so much on this, or maybe they've been selective about which papers can report on it.  I mean lets face it, nobody would want the press reporting a member of their family had drug problems and with Laila being a celebrity it would be ten times worse for her!--5 albert square (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we can change her to recurring now, but we should something more like "Present; regular (dates), recurring (dates)", because putting "former" anywhere means she's a former character and not in it anymore. –anemoneprojectors– 11:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

text: I'd say wait a bit for agreement from others first. Also, if she comes back as regular we could probably remove "recurring" from the infobox, and we probably shouldn't apply our "one year rule" to Mo. –anemoneprojectors– 12:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No i'd say keep classifying her as a regular. We kept Jim Branning as a regular when he was 'away'. If we start classifying regular characters as recurring where will it end? Should therefore Peggy Mitchell be classed as recurring as she is coming back for one epsiode? Bleaney (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Sorry I meant Jim Bleaney (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Or maybe Kim Fox will marry Joey ;-) Yeah Bleaney you could be right, but we can make an exception for just one character, we don't have to then apply it to Peggy Mitchell, Sonia Jackson, Simon Wicks, et al. –anemoneprojectors– 14:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Source here pretty much confirming she is a recurring charaacter - 
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/scoop/a506023/eastenders-mo-harris-caught-out-by-jean-spoiler-pictures.html
What should we do? Bleaney (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Either leave her as she is or take on my suggestion above, putting both regular and recurring with the dates for each. If she becomes a regular again then we could just revert it. –anemoneprojectors– 10:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Her status is being changed quite regularly, I think we need to make a decision. My vote - Keep her as regular for now, but heavily reference her article with all the info about her not appearing much. Bleaney (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to go with that or my other suggestion, but we can't just change regular to recurring. –anemoneprojectors– 11:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

text: I think Bleaney was being tongue-in-cheek with the Peggy comment. We have already established that Mo is currently a recurring character. But because she has been a regular character for the vast majority of her time in the show, we have two options from what I can see - Bleaney's suggestion of leaving the infobox as "regular" but heavily reference her article with all the info about her not appearing much, or my suggestion of changing the infobox to include both statuses: "regular (dates), recurring (dates)". My suggestion may look strange though, especially with the inclusion of the word "present". Either is good but I'm leaning towards Bleaney's suggestion. As I said, we can't remove "regular" because she is a regular character in the first 928 of her 930* episodes, spanning 12 years out of 13 (*number taken from IMDb, may not be accurate). –anemoneprojectors– 08:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  In 2013 

message: She's gone. They've actually made a point of her saying goodbye and going off to live elsewhere (instead of the vague references of before) I would say she is no longer recurring. She may appear again in future but she's essentially left for the moment. With her semi-regular status for the last few years there wouldn't necessarily be a news announcement/fuss made over her going. In the storyline she's moved away to live with Belinda. We saw her mention this herself and go, we didn't just hear second hand from another character that she was staying with Belinda like we used to with her and Elvis.
:"She may appear again" - if what you say is true and she has "gone", we'll treat her the same as we treat Aunt Sal, and remove her when she hasn't appeared for 12 months. AnemoneProjectors 08:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia of "the now".  Mo is a regular character in EastEnders, taken as a whole.  Imagine in 100 years time, if you were to ask what type of character Mo was in the show, you would say she was a 'regular'.  Her (Infobox) entry in the encyclopaedia is her definition as a whole, not her current status.  HTH, Stephenb (Talk) 08:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This one-year rule should be applied to Mo, Jean, Elaine and Libby, as they continue to appear without being announced as returning and could pop up at any time (see Talk:List of EastEnders characters#Libby Fox). AnemoneProjectors 12:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Exit

message: Do we change this to former regular now?  That's got to be a year since her last appearance. She has no family left on the Square and when Belinda appeared Mo's whereabouts weren't mentioned.  There's also been a new EP since her last appearance, I don't think he has any plans for her.--5 albert square (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Her last appearance was 21 January 2016 so not quite a year yet, and she still has Stacey... so you never know. Though I'm sure you're right. Should we wait or just go ahead and mark her as past? anemoneprojectors 11:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have any cast lists for January yet?  If we do, is her name appearing on any of them?--5 albert square (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Only up to 5 January, and no she's not credited. anemoneprojectors 10:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird thing is she's not listed as a past character on the BBC website.--5 albert square (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: She's listed as present with the Moons, but so are Kat and Alfie and we know they've left, so that's definitely a mistake. anemoneprojectors 16:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just go ahead and change it.  Very doubtful she's coming back especially as they've changed EP.  Can we also tell the BBC off for not updating their site?!--5 albert square (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm in agreement, this is one character we can end early.  is good at telling off the BBC, especially when they credit characters who didn't appear in episodes! anemoneprojectors 17:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw I think Kat and Alfie are still listed there because of Redwater, as they're using a Redwater promotional photo, but Mo should still be removed. Unless she turns up in Redwater, which I can't see happening! anemoneprojectors 16:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mo Harris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810020328/http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/soaps/eastenders/whos-who to http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/soaps/eastenders/whos-who
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: “On 1st August 2018 the actress that played mo did a wonderful job”
Apart from being highly subjective, that date was a Wednesday! There wasn’t even an episode for her to be wonderful in! 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.103.55 (talk • contribs) 
:Thanks, looks as if it's been removed.--5 albert square (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Um...

message: 2018 -2022 is incorrect she left in 2021 with a brief stint later in August 2022 Percy2345 (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  incorrect duration for Eastenders