Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders/Archive 4

message: Yep, I archived it- AnemoneProjectors said to do it when there's been no replies for 48 hours, and it's been four days... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 17:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New talk page!

message: When did he appear? I need to add him to the past character list... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 18:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it now! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 21:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Osbourne 

message: Hi, I have added some more stuff on Ian Beale's early history to the article, but I wanted to know what kind of format this article should take before i do anymore. Whether it should be chronological or not? At the moment I have only included the early stuff before Ian and Cindy got married, so nothing overlaps. There is still quite a lot that happens in between Ian's marriages concenring his businesses (like the loan shark stuff and meal machine stuff, bankruptcy)  that havent been mentioned yet. I can either 
a) include the above stuff in the sections with his wives where applicable (i.e. Ian went Bankrupt with Laura, ran the meal machine with Cindy, chip shop etc)
b) I can alter what I've aready put by making two sections Businesses and Relationships, obviously putting all the wives in the relationship section, which might make more sense seeing as Jane isnt his wife. Or 
c) I can take out the wives section and make it all chronological giving differet headings where appropriate. 
let me know what you think I should do, i couldnt work out what was decided from the talk page. Gungadin 22:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think C - chronological order. I don't particularly like the sections about former lovers/spouses on Ian Beale and Phil Mitchell, so yeah, I think it'll be better just in alphabetical order! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 22:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, from the Ian article: "...Darren, but he neglected to inform them that the equipment was only on HP." - what is HP? Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 22:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh that means Hire Purchase, I forgot to change the abbreviation Gungadin 22:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chronological order please, to match other characters. And I assume that's what Trampikey meant when he said "alphabetical order" ;) // AnemoneProjectors // talk // 09:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, yes! I feel like Honey now! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 15:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok Ive made most of it chronological. Most of his business ventures are included in the sections ive updated. Just the enemy section now. Would you prefer his feud with Phil to appear broken up, as and when it happened chronologically, or should it just be left as it is? There also seems to be a lot of repeated information in the 'Jane', 'Phil' and 'other storylines' sections, regarding custody of Ben mostly. Let me know how you would prefer this stuff to be sorted. Gungadin 18:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think the Phil Mitchell bit should be merged with the rest, so there's no duplicate/non chronological information! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 18:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right it is finally all chronological. I hope it's ok. I couldn't remember when the Ian/Wellard stuff occurred, so that might not be in the right place, so if anyone knows can you amend it please Gungadin 19:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in the right place. Well done, it's improved greatly! (Could I direct your attention to the question above regarding Harry Osborne?) Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 20:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ian Beale 

message: I was wondering if anyone else thought it was a good idea to add character's first appearance and last appearance dates in the infobox? Gungadin 22:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have them all... with the years, we know most of them... we also have the danger of having an over-crowded infobox soon, so I think we should just stick to having the specific dates in the articles... the years in the infobox provide a quick year-year duration; more specific info can go in the article! - just my two cents! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 23:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think adding a "first appearance" and "last appearance" to the info box would be fine. It doesn't matter that we don't have them all. All fields are optional, so we can leave the years. The infobox won't be cluttered. Many other infoboxes have much more information than we have now. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  extra things to infobox 

message: You'll all be pleased to know that we can now rate the articles on importance as well as quality, by adding "|importance=" to the talk page template. Ratings are Top, High, Mid and Low (and of course, unknown). I'm currently making sure that ALL EastEnders-related articles have the project template on the talk page (although I'm not rating any of them at the moment). — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article assessment 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is done. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: I removed this from a couple of one-episode characters, but thought we should discuss it further. The reason I removed it is that it's basically duplicated information. Obviously it's still needed for characters who have come and gone and come again. But if a character is in the show for say 3 months, or even 3 years without a break, and if we have the exact dates, should we get rid of the duration years in the infobox? I think we should. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I knw this would happen. That's why I was opposed to the first and last appearences in the infobox in the first place... I think we should leave the duration how it is, it gives a quick overview of what year the character appeared. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 22:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The date gives a quick overview of what year the character appeared, and if you were opposed to it, why did you add it to the infobox? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking about it, I think it should be removed for characters who appeared only within one calendar year, i.e. the joined and left in the same year. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox: Duration 

message: There is conflicting information regarding her birthday. The infobox and the BBC character profile suggets she is born in February 1916, which would make her 84 when she died. However she is supposed to have died the night of her birthday in August, not february.
As well as this, I have just recently seen that episode, and she is celebrating her 85th birthday, meaning she'd be born in september 1915. But at the end of the episode she tells Dot she lied about her age and her birthday. she said she is actually 86 meaning she'd be born in 1914.
Which piece of information do you think should be used in the article? Gungadin 13:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've always used information seen on screen, so use September 1914... (Other examples include the names of Eric Mitchell's parents - on screen they were named as Robert and Sandra, but on the website's family tree, they're called Harry and Eva... but in the articles for Phil, Grant and Sam, we use Robert and Sandra as it was seen on screen, and is therefore seen as canon... also, we use the name Hester Samuels, because that's what her name was on-screen, but her name in the novels was Miriam...) Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 16:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look on Walford.net. in 1991 Ethel celebrated her 75th birthday on Feb 19th, meaning she was born in 1916. This episode in 2000 says that Dot is arranging a bday party for Ethel, but Pauline points out her birthday is in February  - which implies they were just humouring her and brought her bday forward before she kicks the bucket. However Ethel says near the end of the episode on the 7th that she lied about her age - she's actually 86 - and her birthday (obviously EE's naff attempt at covering their inconsistencies). So shall I just add a trivia section explaining this all at the bottom? Gungadin 17:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, put it as 19 Feb...  and explain it in the trivia... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 17:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone add details to the Ian Beale article about Ian SORASing? I would, but I don't know the details... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 20:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ethel Skinner]]'s Birthday 

message: I believe I've just made a major improvement to the way the infobox looks. It's also easier to edit as well. Let me know what you think! Check out any of our character pages. I actually wonder if there's more we can add. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I did the same for  — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks the same... but a bit wider... and you changed it to "portrayed by"... And no, I don't think there's anything we can add... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 22:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well making it wider is a major improvement, as some of them were scarily thin. Now they're all the same standard width. Also, I made it easier to edit the template. And stuff like "Book appearances" is now on one line instead of two. I dunno why I changed it to "portrayed" but that's not important. Must have been a copy and paste thing. Things I thought of adding were (things I've seen on other character infoboxes)... image caption, reason for departure, spouse and children separate from other family members... — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Image captions would be lame - they'd all just be "Anna Wing as Lou Beale" (for example). Reason for departure is quite ambiguous; and could cause problems with long explanations, etc. The infobox includes spouse, children, siblings and parents - and splitting one section into four for when it's fine as it is just seems stupid... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 22:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the infobox does include spouse, children, siblings and parents, but it doesn't say how they're related to the character. I just thought it might be an improvement. Perhaps Gungadin would like to give her opinion too. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm i'm undecided. I definitely don't think 'reason for deaprture' should be included, that should be in the article in a more descript way anyway. I recently saw some neighbours articles and think their infoboxes look a bit OTT, but maybe i'm biased to the EE ones. Including separate family sections may work, but it might start to get a bit long, and their family is already included at the bottom. It would be fine for those with long articles, like Pat for instance, but some of the ones with barely any info already look a bit silly as their infoboxes are longer than the article. Sometimes having a massive infobox can be annoying, especially when you want to place an image next to relevant text and it gets in the way.You can always try it out and see.Gungadin 21:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well let's just leave it as it is for now then, unless something new crops up. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on our infobox 

message: On here it says that one of our projects is to start a newsletter for our members... I think I'm going to start this... any ideas, suggestions etc. are welcome =] Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 22:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea. Is it worth it? There's only a few active members. I have enough user talk spam already. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose... then it should be removed from the "to do" template... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 22:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go on then. Who put it there anyway. Was it you? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly... I can't remember. I probably left it on there when I copied the to do template from another WikiProject. I've removed it now anyway... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 22:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah you did, I checked the history. What project did you copy it from? I always wondered. Did you know we have three lists of things to do? One in that template, one on the WikiProject main page and one in the portal. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's a nice irrelevant piece of information... I think it was The Beatles WikiProject. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 22:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not irrelevant. It's unnecessary to have the same thing in three places. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then do something about it... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 23:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I've just found something to do with the to do template. So now I don't have a problem with the three lists. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Newsletter for WikiProject members

message: ...why do we have the character names in italics in the family sections? Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 19:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Of course, they shouldn't be, but we did have a discussion about it once. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think we should review our policy again... and also set a real, proper order for the family, as the other one kind of just fizzles out with no consensus. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 20:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with the order of the family that was suggested, I've stuck to it ever since. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a similar note, I was wondering if we can try to sort out some sort of format for article headers for the characters. I was thinking that instead of using the heading History we could call it storylines, then use sub-headings to separate things within the section. Or do you think that would look messy? I've done it with Angie Watts, but will revert if you don't like it Gungadin 22:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think your change from History to Storylines was a good one. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 00:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  May I ask... 

message: I was wondering if anyone had any objections to me making an article on two hander episodes. and if no one minds do you remember any of the the two-handers and rough dates that they aired?
Here are some I can recall:
*Den and Angie (6 months to live)
*Dot and Ethel (war time nostalgia)
*Sharon and Michelle (Den is vicki's father)
*Sharon and Phil (She sells her share of the vic)
*Kat and Zoe (im ur mother)
*Steve and Matthew (the revenge stuff)
*Dot and Den (cancer)
*Kat and Alfie (stuff about her affair with Andy)
*Pat and Peggy
*Frank and Roy
Gungadin 22:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would anyone have any objections? EastEnders is famous for them. Go ahead and be bold. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two-handers 

message: Why were these pages all moved? (Dr. May Wright, Dr. Oliver Cousins, Dr. Johnathon Leroy, Dr. Anthony Trueman, Dr. Fred Fonseca, Dr. Harold Legg, Dr. Graham Stone, Dr. Annie Grey, Dr. Briony Campbell, Dr. Isla McCulloch, Dr. Jaggat Singh, Dr. David Samuels, Rev. David Walsh, Rev. Tom Stuart and Rev. Alex Healy)
The reason given was "Wikipedia does not usually use titles in article names... BUT, they're ALWAYS credited on EastEnders as "Dr..." or "Rev..." - so surely we should use the name they were credited with? (for example: Libby Fox is credited as Libby, but also known as Squiggle...)
What do you think? I think the issue should have at least been raised here first! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 15:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A non-WPEE Wikipedian started it, so I finished it. Move them back if you want. Though for an encyclopaedia, I think they shouldn't be included. We don't include Mr. and Mrs., Dr. is really just the same. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. and Rev... 

message: The article needs a lot more content! I didn't realise how lacking in information it is! It needs Gungadinising (á la Ian Beale!) (or just someone else who knows a lot about Pauline) - but it's split into Arthur and Joe sections, with hardly anything about her 22 year history!! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a go at it after Ive finished doing Frank. Problem with Pauline is that most of her storylines are basically just her interfering in other people's storylines arent they? I think she had fibroids at one stage, and was in hospital over xmas 1989 having a hysterectomy. She fancied Derek for a while. She uncovered Willy Roper as the real embezzelment culprit. Arthur's affair could be covered in more depth I suppose. Can you think of anything else noteworthy that she's been involved in? Gungadin 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pauline Fowler]] 

message: ===Italics?===
Oppose - I don't think they should be there... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 18:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with you on the order and Italics, not really bothered about deceased being there or not. If everyone else wants to get rid of it I wont object.Gungadin 18:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lose the italics. Agree with the order. That's pretty much the order I've been using. Though "grandmothers" and "grandfathers" sounds weird, which we would use if we knew of both. And you forgot nephews and nieces. Not bothered about deceased, though it is sometimes difficult to maintain that bit. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All in agreement so far. I've added greats as well. Do we want to use the word "spouse"? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I used the word spouse there because I couldn't be bothered to type husband/wife! I didn;t mean to change it! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 20:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As you were both pretty neutral, I've decided to leave it in, as I looked at Johnny Allen (EastEnders)#Family and decided it looks better with the "(deceased)" bit. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 20:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: None from me. I'll use AWB to belp me :) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and also, as you're going along, remember to remove and stepfamily and in-laws! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was just about to remind you the same thing! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we to re-order the family in the infobox in the same way? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think of that! Yes, I suppose... Dad/Mum/Bro/Sis/Spouse/Son/Daughter - but its not as important as the sections Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 21:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Do we still label half-sisters/brothers as that, or just sister/brother? oh and do we put paternal/maternal next to those half siblings? Gungadin 21:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put "half-", but don't put paternal or maternal... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 21:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also for those who are grandparents. does grandson etc go before or after nephews?Gungadin 21:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grandson should go before nephews, after grandparents. Where should Donna Ludlow's adoptive father go? Are Naomi's family real? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Make an "Adoptive family" section like Sharon Rickman and Rebecca Miller (EastEnders) - and they are real ccording to the official site! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 21:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not doing adoptive family sections when it's just one person. I'm putting them at the end. And I'm putting half-siblings after siblings. I think I went a bit blind/mad a minute ago when I added the grandchildren to the order a) in the wrong place and b) when they were already there! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And Rebecca! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Rebecca... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 22:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wrong, Rebecca's only three times removed. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL! Well, AWB is only doing so much, it's still a tiring task! Damn those incestuous Slaters! I don't envy Gungadin for having the S's! I have an idea about Zoe's complicated family but we can discuss that after we've finished this. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I need a break! Will finish off tomorrow. Got as far as Peggy! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh damn I just did the Zoe Slater family before reading this. Took me ages to work it all out. I did it in paternal and maternal as I thought it would make more sense for this one character, what was ur idea AP?Gungadin 23:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter, what you've done is better! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: About as fun as a trip to a dentist's for a kid who's eaten too many sweets! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 21:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I did most of the remaining ones, but I know I didn't do Mary Flaherty! So maybe she's the only one left... but maybe not. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again- family section - I think we should vote? 

message: Oppose - I don't think they should be there... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 18:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Italics?

message: Proposition:
 Father
 Mother
 Brother
 Sister
 Husband/Wife
 Son
 Daughter
 Grandfather
 Grandmother
 Great grandfather
 Great grandmother
 Grandson
 Granddaughter
 Great grandson
 Great granddaughter
 Nephew
 Niece
 Great nephew
 Great niece
 Uncle
 Aunt
 Great uncle
 Great aunt
 Cousin
 First cousin once removed
 Second cousin
What do you think? Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 18:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with you on the order and Italics, not really bothered about deceased being there or not. If everyone else wants to get rid of it I wont object.Gungadin 18:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lose the italics. Agree with the order. That's pretty much the order I've been using. Though "grandmothers" and "grandfathers" sounds weird, which we would use if we knew of both. And you forgot nephews and nieces. Not bothered about deceased, though it is sometimes difficult to maintain that bit. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All in agreement so far. I've added greats as well. Do we want to use the word "spouse"? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I used the word spouse there because I couldn't be bothered to type husband/wife! I didn;t mean to change it! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 20:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order?

message: Why do we include "(deceased)" in the family sections? Is it really needed? Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 18:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you were both pretty neutral, I've decided to leave it in, as I looked at Johnny Allen (EastEnders)#Family and decided it looks better with the "(deceased)" bit. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 20:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Also...

message: OK, as it'll take ages for me to do all the changes on my own, if you two don't mind, can I split the work between the three of us? If you don't mind, it'll be something like:
*Trampikey - A-I and misc in :Category:EastEnders characters
*AnemoneProjectors - J-Q
*Gungadin - R-Z
Any objections? Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 20:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None from me. I'll use AWB to belp me :) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and also, as you're going along, remember to remove and stepfamily and in-laws! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was just about to remind you the same thing! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we to re-order the family in the infobox in the same way? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think of that! Yes, I suppose... Dad/Mum/Bro/Sis/Spouse/Son/Daughter - but its not as important as the sections Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 21:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Do we still label half-sisters/brothers as that, or just sister/brother? oh and do we put paternal/maternal next to those half siblings? Gungadin 21:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put "half-", but don't put paternal or maternal... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 21:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also for those who are grandparents. does grandson etc go before or after nephews?Gungadin 21:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grandson should go before nephews, after grandparents. Where should Donna Ludlow's adoptive father go? Are Naomi's family real? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Make an "Adoptive family" section like Sharon Rickman and Rebecca Miller (EastEnders) - and they are real ccording to the official site! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 21:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not doing adoptive family sections when it's just one person. I'm putting them at the end. And I'm putting half-siblings after siblings. I think I went a bit blind/mad a minute ago when I added the grandchildren to the order a) in the wrong place and b) when they were already there! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: System for changing them...

message: This only really applies to Gungadin doing Joe and David Wicks I think... don't forget to add Nellie Ellis! She's not on any of the family sections! She is:
*Second cousin to Lou Beale
*Second cousin once removed to Lou's kids
*Second cousin twice removed to their kids
*Second cousin three times removed to their kids
*Second cousin four times removed to Liam Butcher (and Natasha)
Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 21:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Rebecca! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Rebecca... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 22:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wrong, Rebecca's only three times removed. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nellie Ellis]]

message: I have to go now. I have a problem with my computer. Namely a stroppy little sister who wants to get on MSN Messenger to talk to her friends. I've only got up to Pete Beale... I'll try and do the rest tomorrow (sorry!). Possibly my good, good friend AnemoneProjectors could use his AWB on them... possibly? lol bye! =] Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 22:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Well, AWB is only doing so much, it's still a tiring task! Damn those incestuous Slaters! I don't envy Gungadin for having the S's! I have an idea about Zoe's complicated family but we can discuss that after we've finished this. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I need a break! Will finish off tomorrow. Got as far as Peggy! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh damn I just did the Zoe Slater family before reading this. Took me ages to work it all out. I did it in paternal and maternal as I thought it would make more sense for this one character, what was ur idea AP?Gungadin 23:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter, what you've done is better! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eek...

message: Done my bit... and doing some of Trampikey's too! Was fun ;) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About as fun as a trip to a dentist's for a kid who's eaten too many sweets! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 21:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I did most of the remaining ones, but I know I didn't do Mary Flaherty! So maybe she's the only one left... but maybe not. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finished!!

message: Does anyone think it would be a good idea to have a section about the official EE website on the main article (and possibly something about online fandom?) Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 00:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea Gungadin 01:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website section on main article 

message: I'm proposing that the "Annuals and books" section of EastEnders merchandise be merged to the top of EastEnders books. Any objections? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: none from me Gungadin 14:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: me neither! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 15:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could it do with a re-write or shall we just cut and paste? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it didn't need either, but thanks for commenting (!) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books and merchandise 

message: Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How ridiculous! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 09:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CFD notice

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: Looks like Petal's name is going back to Janet at around Christmas time!
Sounds like fun for us with moving pages etc! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 15:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's stupid! But it'll just be a simple move and a few changes on other articles... — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ugh... 

message: I noticed that Clare Tyler is known as Clare Bates on the official website . I think Nigel adopted her. I was wondering if someone could move it? as I dont wanna muck it up. Also Bianca Jackson is Bianca butcher on the oficial site . Should that be moved too? Gungadin 22:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about Clare, but Bianca is Jackson. We know this from her last on-screen appearance in the Rick and Bianca special,where she applied for a college course under the name Jackson. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 15:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh thats good about Bianca, cos I made that page and just assumed at the time she was a Jackson again following her divorce without checking the official profiles. I will have a look and see if I can find proof that Clare was adopted. Gungadin 21:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  move articles 

message: ...is there some way we could have like a WPEE village pump-y type thing to discuss whatever we want? Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 20:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno, what's that mean? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like a little WPEE forum to discuss stuff not directly relating to the improvement of articles... I think it would be nice and take some stress off... talking about Pauline and Joe on Gungadin's talk page got me thinking... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 20:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think we can do it on Wikipedia... would be good though. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I know that Wikipedia is not a forum BUT...