Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders/Archive 8

message: Quick! Rettetast went on Wikibreak! Put the images back ;) anemone|projectors 21:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, do you really think we should, or were you just joking? I dunno if you had noticed, but another user mentioned on his talk page that there is no rule for no images in lists. Ive asked him to confirm if this definitely includes character lists. He hasnt replied, but I since noticed that he reincluded the images in the 1990 list, so i'm presuming it's ok to. Gungadin♦ 21:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I spotted that. I'll let you decide if you think I was joking or not... :) anemone|projectors 22:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided  that you werent joking :) However, this is becoming tiresome and it's really time consuming because the oprhan toga have to be removed from the images. What should we do if he keeps reverting? He's not following a set rule, and refuses to discuss it first, so I dont see what right he has to do this. Perhaps we should just give the ones we want to illustrate their own page, and leave the others without? Gungadin♦ 15:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah we could do that too. You're right, it is tiresome. Maybe that's the best idea then. anemone|projectors 16:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images part 2

message: Please can this be mentioned somewhere! I saw it and thought "they must have filmed that today". — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason why not, any ideas where is could go? Maybe in Minty, but it's possibly more suited for inclusion in a production section, if we have one.Gungadin♦ 00:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In EastEnders#Filming and also maybe in History of EastEnders#Later history. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 09:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it in the filming section :) anemone|projectors 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing the subject...

message: I learnt about Parsar Function thingies today and made what might look like a major change to the template but it's only minor really. Took me ages to get it right. It's just a slight change in categorisation of the pages containing the template. If it doesn't appear to be working properly on any particular page, let me know and I'll fix it. anemone|projectors 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to [[:template:EastEnders project class]]

message: This template doesn't work because it doesn't specify which article the image can be used in. Gungadin obviously writes her own rationale each time, but Trampikey still uses the template (and doesn't even substitute it). This isn't good, I suggest we delete the template to discourage its usage. A template shouldn't be used for this. I'm surprised I actually let us get away with it for as long as I have. What do you all think? anemone|projectors 14:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there's no point in keeping it, cos Betacommand-butt is just scanning everything that's written on the rationale, and if it doesnt see the name of the article or the source etc, then it tags it for deletion. The Bot isnt recognising the words in because its only a  template quick link. I hate this Bot. I really dont agree that images should be tagged if they were uploaded before this 10c rule was put into place. If I didnt come on here regularly to check, then most of my images would have been deleted.Gungadin♦ 14:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:WPEE FUR 

message: Weeeeeeeee!!! 
See also Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/EastEnders articles by quality. anemone|projectors 22:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty, did you make it? We dont have many B or higher, not that it matters though. I'd prefer to keep them all crap, because once they get good the chances that we have to mix with aggravating editors increases, lol Gungadin♦ 22:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen it on other WikiProjects and guessed it was something that could be automatically updated. It is, so I managed to find out how to get a bot to create it. I like it :) I think we have a lot of B-class articles that aren't assessed as B-class. anemone|projectors 23:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it too :) Gungadin♦ 18:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I always wanted one of these! 

message: http://gaming.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=10303 and http://www.games-digest.com/2007/11/eidos-bag-right.html
Something for the pop culture page :) anemone|projectors 22:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/a79367/eastenders-game-rumour-is-false-says-bbc.html Stephenb (Talk) 22:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, I was literally six emails away from that Google alert! anemone|projectors 22:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EastEnders: The Video Game 

message: How many pages should we mention this on? I've put it in the news section of the portal already. anemoneIprojectors 16:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Dot's real world section, if she ever gets one, and the two-hander page, which I'm thinking needs a bit of condensing in parts.Gungadin♦ 18:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably also somewhere on the main EastEnders page. Maybe the episode will be deserving of its own article ;) anemoneIprojectors 18:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-hander episode 

message: Shall I PROD this article? anemoneIprojectors 15:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh, it's not necessary in my opinion.Gungadin♦ 18:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. We agreed it wasn't needed before but we didn't do anything about it. I don't want to just delete it and I also don't want to AFD it so PRODding is probably best. Someone will delete it eventually. Unless the template gets removed - and it would be wrong to revert that. anemoneIprojectors 22:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose Trampikey may want it for some reason, but I cant think why. I'm glad it's not going to AFD, remember how much they ridiculed our list of Pets one? lol It would never survive AFD anyway. Gungadin♦ 00:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Trampikey really wants it, he can de-PROD it next time he's on. anemoneIprojectors 00:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Jesus, usually they are desperate to delete our stuff, now we cant delete things even when we want to. We could just redirect it to list of characters perhaps?Gungadin♦ 01:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, I don't know! Redirection sounds like a good idea. Do we really not want it at all? anemoneIprojectors 02:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. We have enough trouble maintaining the important lists and people can just get all that info from family sections in character pages. But we can always wait to see if Trampikey has an opinion first, and if he doesnt then there's no reason for it to be kept.Gungadin♦ 02:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ha! I think I will vote to delete, but I hope this guy doesnt move onto the other lists.Gungadin♦ 14:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion will be better than merging in this case. The other lists should be ok, the only one's I'd worry about now are the residences and the buildings. The characters, crew, spin-offs and off-set episodes lists are more important (and are sourced). anemoneIprojectors 16:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there will be ways around losing them all together if someone AFDs them. Such as merging the lists of residences and properties into Albert Square or Walford. The prose would all need to be vastly cut though. Perhaps we could put them in a table and just have ex-residents and years. It will be a shame to lose detail, but I doubt they would be kept if they go to AFD, as it's all unsourced and in-universe info.Gungadin♦ 16:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that's a good idea. They could all be merged with Walford as I think all the locations are in Walford. Although a table might be difficult for businesses when they've had lots of different names, but I'm sure we'd work it out (or you already have). Also the residences article isn't all people moving in and out, we should also have stuff like births and deaths and other important events that happened in each property like break-ins and fires. I'm sure they can all go in a table too. At least we have a plan if they ever end up at AFD. anemoneIprojectors 17:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of families in EastEnders]] 

message: If anyone hasn't already noticed, List of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders has been nominated for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders. anemoneIprojectors 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not again. Shall we just merge them into the list of past characters article for now. It would serve the same purpose at the bottom of that, and no one would try to delete it again. Speaking of AFDs, I see that the cull on UK soap characters has started. These are for Corrie, but we might be next, and they will have a field day with all our unsourced, inuniverse articles. We should try bunging in references to avoid this.Gungadin♦ 01:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be right on that page? I guess so. Well they seem to want to merge all those characters, so I think we might be ok. Worst case is that we have longer lists (unfortunately with fewer images). But we can find sources and remember that there is no deadline. anemoneIprojectors 02:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Past characters is not a perfect place for them I suppose, but I quite like having those lists and wouldnt want them to be deleted from here entirely. I cant think of a good argument for them to stay on AFD, but maybe i'll think of one tomorrow when i'm more alert. If we do put them on Past list then maybe we could also put the old Pet one there too? Gungadin♦ 02:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could put the BMD lists back onto the storylines pages, but they would have to be split across the three decades. But that's where they used to be. The pets would be nice to come back, maybe on the past characters list, but not all pets are past. anemoneIprojectors 14:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall we  do current and past pets in a table at he bottom of each list? I guess listing BMD on storylines is our best option (until someone attempts to AFD it again). Shame to split them, but I suppose it's not really important.Gungadin♦ 17:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe all pets could go on the list of characters (as there's so few), and just use the past characters page for human characters. anemoneIprojectors 17:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've also saved the pets page here. anemoneIprojectors 11:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD 

message: Can someone delete all the captions Majormk has just added? I would but I have to go now! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh ok then, I'll do it. But I don't think it's a "mess". anemoneIprojectors 16:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me either, I can see why it would be useful for some readers to state what year the image was taken.Gungadin♦ 16:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already reverted. Most images are recent anyway so it doesn't really matter too much to have the captions saying what year they're from. anemoneIprojectors 17:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What a mess!

message: Congratulations to all involved in getting Pauline Fowler up to FA. It looks like you had to struggle against pop-culture biases. Even some valid RSs were shaped as unreliable! The JPStalk to me 12:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the biggest thanks should go to Gungadin and Elonka for spending so much time and effort on the article. And thank you, The JPS, for your support comment on the FAC, which I think helped a lot. I was expecting it to go on for longer, so it was a lovely surprise this morning. What happens next? Will Pauline end up on the main page? What's our next target for FA? Should we update the WikiProject page to reflect the standard of our new FA? anemone│projectors 13:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh, thanks for your support and comment about the sources, JPS. Clearly some editors just like inventing their own opinion-based wikipedia rules.Gungadin♦ 01:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congrats 

message: The sockpuppets seem to have disappeared so I'm going to try unprotecting our semi-protected articles. If it happens again I think it'll just be easier to revert than to protect, as protection just sends them to a different page. anemone│projectors 21:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just going to let the bot remove the protection templates because I have a really bad headache :( anemone│projectors 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: Ive just rustled up a page on the Ireland episodes per suggestions a while back. The episodes dont have a name like "Who shot Phil?" so what shall I call the page?
I have a few ideas, do you like any, or have other suggestions?
*EastEnders in Ireland
*Fowlers in Ireland
*Fowler family reunion
*EastEnders Ireland special (it's called that here )
Gungadin♦ 21:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EastEnders episodes in Ireland may be more encyclopaedia-friendly. No idea. I just discovered The Mitchell family! anemone│projectors 22:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that should be redirected to Peggy or something. Isn't just a copy of all the individial pages?Gungadin♦ 23:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a copy. And a fair use image nightmare! Sorry for changing the subject ;) anemone│projectors 23:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ok, i made it per your suggestion. Shall we redirect this Mitchell page? All those images!!! Gungadin♦ 01:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: P.s we can merge in all the special characters now and give some back their images. Trampikey will be pleased I should imagine.Gungadin♦ 01:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job! Yeah put all the minor Flahertys in! And redirect the Mitchell's page too. anemone│projectors 14:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EastEnders: Ireland 

message: We currently have two articles on EastEnders families, The Beale/Fowler family and The Branning/Jackson family. It seems that the standard on Wikipedia is not to include the word "the", as in Skywalker family and McFly family (two notable fictional families). I suggest moving our pages to remove the word "the" but should we use Beale/Fowler family and Branning/Jackson family, or just Beale family and Branning family? I think the latter is probably more correct. anemone│projectors 23:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to go with your suggestion on this :) Gungadin♦ 22:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But which one, Beale/Fowler and Branning/Jackson or Beale and Branning? anemone│projectors 22:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you prefer the Beale & Branning, then let's just go for that, because I dont have a strong preference either way.Gungadin♦ 15:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beale and Branning it is then. anemone│projectors 18:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And at the same time, someone created The Beale and the Fowler Family, which is already listed at AFD!!! Oh, do you think you could do some of you OOU magic on the family articles when you get a chance? Like how the Beales was the first family created and was based on Holland's own family, that kind of thing. anemone│projectors 19:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It was speedy deleted because the person who wrote it, blanked it. Not even redirected! Then they tried to paste the same stuff onto the existing article, which was basically a copy of existing character articles, same as the Mitchells' one was! Probably the same person. What, you've got a job??? I demand that you quit so you can edit Wikipedia full time!!! anemone│projectors 16:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, I wish I could. I forgot how easy I had it as a fulltime student :) --Gungadin♦ 19:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, things will still get done, just a bit slower. I work full time so I only edit when I'm not working, and I still get stuff done! Don't I?? anemone│projectors 23:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know how you find the energy. Weekends i'm not home much to edit, and weekdays I seem to get too tired and braindead after work, but I'm sure I'll get used to it. I'm not planning on giving up on wiki, everything may take longer now tho :) Shame there's only a few of us doing anything positive to the EE articles. Wish we could recruit some more members to help us out Gungadin♦ 23:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Energy? I don't have much of that. But I also don't have a life! But I normally go through my watchlist when I get home, seeing what's been changed that day, making minor changes and reverting, which can sometimes take all evening especially when I'm doing other things at the same time. This is why I rarely do major edits. It is a shame that some EastEnders fans who decide to join the project, don't really learn the rules of Wikipedia and the project, few seem interested in joining in. There are a few who are good at cleaning up articles, such as that Conquistador(?) fellow (not a member of WP:EE) and Stephenb is still around, but nobody's adding sources, discussing things here, etc. It's just you and me!!!!! anemone│projectors 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Trampikey made a banner already. I wasn't expecting you to notice this! The work you do here is good, it's a shame that others don't join us to help with the research and significant contributions. I'm thankful for the anonymous fans though, they add plot information, even if it is badly written. At least it can be cleaned up. Yes, more members is what we need. anemone│projectors 10:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Families