Talk:Lucy Beale

message: This page is far too detailed. Not everthing that happens to Lucy has to be included in such detail. Ive started to reduce.Gungadin♦ 22:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the characters with current storylines are getting out of hand with poorly written and unneccesary stuff being added on a daily basis. We really need to keep an eye on all additions and clean them up straight away. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 12:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detail 

message: peter and lucy were born on december 9th, however didn't appear until december 16th. their birth was never seen on screen.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eefan (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and made the change for you. anemoneIprojectors 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the page is only semi-protected, so you should be able to edit it yourself. Just make sure you leave an edit summary to explain your edit if you want to change something that might be questioned. anemoneIprojectors 23:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  first appearance 

message: *
*
*
*
:No idea who posted the above, but here's another source that may or may not be relevant, but if it is, I think Lucy's is the most relevant article for it.  It's about the woman in the birthing video she was shown. AnemoneProjectors 18:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This source might be better. AnemoneProjectors 21:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been added now so for anyone who decides to look here for sources, you can ignore the birthing DVD source :) AnemoneProjectors 22:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: (Reset indent) The point of my posts about the BBC sites was that the headlines are all about the character ("Lucy's leaving" and "Chelsea Fox is Set to Leave") but you're all taking one to mean that the character is leaving, and the other to say that at the moment we only know the actress is leaving.  Yes, there are multiple other citable ones for Jean (yes, I know she's leaving, I'm not claiming she's being recast, don't be silly... (ahem) :) ), but I was specifically using the BBC site as another example where there are double standards as to reliable citability in these cases - that it doesn't always specifically say the character is leaving when, clearly, he/she is.  As another example, Peggy is leaving, although the BBC site  doesn't explicitly say this, just that Barbara Windsor is leaving (and who's to say they won't recast with her, they've done it before!).  Stephenb (Talk) 08:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, we know that Peggy is leaving from other sources and again, a simple headline isn't good enough - they often refer to actors by the characters' names as Frickative already mentioned. The official site's news stories tend to be vague anyway, they often give little background information that other news sites give, and it's often padded out with quotes and character background. The point is, with Melissa Suffield, nobody at all has said Lucy is leaving, they're being very careful about it. AnemoneProjectors 09:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not arguing there aren't other sources for the others, but if we're going to say the BBC site is reliable to say "character X is leaving" in any citations then the headline "Lucy's Leaving" should be enough in this case too, otherwise we shouldn't be relying on it as a reliable source.  Nobody has said Lucy is staying either, it's *very* unlikely after 6 years with such a recognisable actress that they'd recast immediately, and to say they might recast at all is surely OR or pure supposition!  The only information from a source that we've previously treated as reliable is the BBC site is that "Lucy's Leaving". If you have other information that they might recast, let us all know, but otherwise, IMO, we should go with that. Stephenb (Talk) 11:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A headline isn't enough, and as has been said at least twice already, they have refered to other actors by their character names. The headline is just to grab your attention. The article is what matters! This isn't to do with the BBC, it's to do with all reliable sources. They are all being careful not to say Lucy is leaving. Yes they haven't said Lucy is staying but we can't say she's leaving if she's staying. Not saying she's leaving doesn't mean we're saying she's staying. It's just waiting for confirmation. Which we don't have. Like I said, it could take months. For all we know, Bryan Kirkwood could still be deciding on Lucy's future, so he might not even know if Lucy is leaving. Compare to Rory Williams from Doctor Who. He travelled on the TARDIS, which people thought made him a companion of the Doctor, but we didn't say so on Wikipedia until reliable sources confirmed it. We have to wait. AnemoneProjectors 11:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "The headline is just to grab your attention" is just your opinion.  It's saying that Lucy is leaving, and that's the obvious interpretation. Equal to your argument, we can't say Lucy is staying if she's leaving, and we don't have to wait for confirmation, we already have it. "For all we know" - well, exactly - this is all just your supposition about what Brian Kirkwood is thinking or not thinking, we can only go with the evidence we have - and the only evidence is the headline. The only evidence that it might be recast is all in your head! Stephenb (Talk) 14:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again: "A headline is not good enough! They refer to actors by their character names. Every source is being careful not to say that Lucy is leaving." Is this so hard to understand? Are we saying it wrong? We're not saying Lucy is staying. I know I made suppositions but they are beside the point anyway! We must wait for a source that says Lucy is leaving and not just a headline where the article does not match the headline! As I keep saying, it could take months. Just be paatient. AnemoneProjectors 16:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again Of course the headline is enough!  It's only your interpretation that the headline is not true.  There is nothing to suggest otherwise.  How patient do we need to be?  It says it in the official BBC EastEnders News page!  Is that so hard to understand?  Am I saying it wrong?  By implication, you are saying that Lucy is staying, even though the site says otherwise.  We must wait for another source?  Why would the BBC make another announcement - they've already made the one they needed to make!  They aren't sitting around saying "oh, we need to clarify this for Wikipedia editors", it's been done! Stephenb (Talk) 16:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The headline and the article do not match! Every source is being careful to not say Lucy is not leaving. We aren't saying Lucy is staying, we are saying Suffield is leaving, and are waiting for confirmation on Lucy's fate. It hasn't been clarified at all, it's totally unclear. How patient do we have to be? I have said several times, it could take months before we know for sure. Would you rather publish something that turns out to be wrong or wait until we can be absolutely certain? I'm getting fed up of repeating the same points over and over again. I don't think you're taking any notice. AnemoneProjectors 16:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Agreed the conversation isn't going anywhere, but I would assume it will only be up in the air for a few more days at most - I can't imagine none of the soap magazines passing comment on Tuesday, which should give us something more to go on, one way or the other. Frickative 19:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we wait until then, then? I don't read any soap magazines but I can't see them knowing anything that Digital Spy (for example) doesn't. AnemoneProjectors 20:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not, but I'd be surprised if every single one stuck to mentioning Melissa without commenting on Lucy. They might not know with 100% certainty, but if they report it I think it's fair game that we can cover it. I don't usually buy any, but I flick through the new editions. (I don't read Digital Spy often, because I hate the way most of their articles are pulled from other sources but never link to the original. /tangent) Of course if it gets ignored the way it has been by most of the usual sources so far, we can re-asses. Frickative 20:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's see what happens then. (Kris Green from Digital Spy is really good, though, at not pulling articles from other sources.) AnemoneProjectors 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

text: There isn't a News of the World source on this page. AnemoneProjectors 16:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break

message: Ok, so, i remembered just a minute ago that on Bianca Jackson's wikipedia page there was a hidden note next to her duration some time back saying something along the lines of not changing it until official return/departure dates were announced, which means that if she were to have left in 2010, and returned in 2011, the duration would have been changed! And Bianca was always going to return too! SO... this is the same thing for Lucy! Why not change the duration for Lucy?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.14.237 (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs a wider discussion because it affects Tanya Branning as well. Personally I don't think the duration should be changed in these circumstances but we need to sort it out once and for all. AnemoneProjectors 12:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I'll copy this discussion to WT:EE and we can discuss it there. AnemoneProjectors 19:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Well we're still discussing it so please don't change anything until we have decided. AnemoneProjectors 12:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dont really see that actors maternity/paternity leave should constitute a break in duration. After all, the actors are still under contract in EE, they continue to be paid etc. If we are going to change this we should also take a look at Denise Johnson and Max Branning, as the actors who played them also had breaks for maternity/paternity leave. In fact, we could go all the way back and include Kat Moon and Mo Slater in the discussion too. Lucy to me is a separate issue as the actor ended their contract therefore there is a definate break in duration. Bleaney (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the discussion has moved to WT:EE#Durations though. AnemoneProjectors 17:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duration and things... 

message: Apparently a soap mag has said there are now no plans for Lucy to return. Can someone a) confirm and b) cite the magazine to update this article? Thanks :) –AnemoneProjectors– 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: From the letters page of this weeks Inside Soap - "A Walford spokesperson has told Inside Soap that any storylines or casting decisions regarding the character of Peter have yet to be decided. And the same goes for the teen's twin sister, Lucy" - JuneGloom  Talk 20:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That just means they haven't recast her yet, not that they won't. –AnemoneProjectors– 20:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think she should be put to past. If we have no indication that she is being recast, it's inaccurate to say she is returning for now.GunGagdinMoan 20:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But what would we say in the article? There's no confirmation that they've changed their mind about a recast. –AnemoneProjectors– 20:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

text: (ec) I agree with Gungadin. Obviously Thomas Law's decision to quit and Laurie Brett's pregnancy will have influenced Lucy's future as a character since the recast was reported in June 2010. It's inaccurate to say she's returning when it's "undecided". That's like saying a character's leaving if the actor is undecided whether they will renew their contract. MayhemMario, it doesn't say that either of them are being recast, the spokesperson said that both of their futures were undecided, i.e. no decision has been made yet. I think it's best to assume, based on the latest information we have, that no return is planned at the moment. 144.124.121.55 (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)It can still say that it was reported Kirkwood plans to recast, but saying she's a past character is not inaccurate even if there are plans to recast, because she is not there and when/if they do recast, then we can add her to returning. My opinion anyway, and probably same should be done with Peter. At the moment their returns are speculative.GunGagdinMoan 20:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, well I suppose we can say that in February 2011, a spokesperson said whatever and cite the magazine. –AnemoneProjectors– 21:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But I still don't think she should be classed as returning, here or on the character list, because they still haven't decided if she is. Obviously if there ever is an announcement about her returning, she should be added back onto the list, but at the moment, as Gungadin said, any return is purely speculative, and I'm sure there's a Wikipedia guideline somewhere against speculative information. 144.124.121.55 (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not speculative, it's the original plan. They've said the recast hasn't happened yet, but not that plan has changed. So saying she's returning isn't speculative. By the way Peter was never announced to be returning, so there's no issue with him - but whoever said he quit, that was also never announced. Just that he had filmed his exit. Update all the articles to say she's a past character if you want, we can just wait until they announce the recast. But it just leaves the article in limbo. –AnemoneProjectors– 21:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to use it, the full Inside Soap ref is -  - JuneGloom  Talk 21:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there an issue number as well? :) –AnemoneProjectors– 21:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 6 :) - JuneGloom  Talk 22:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I've updated all relevant articles to class her as a past character until an announcement is made about her returning. 144.124.121.55 (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with that. I did slightly reword the addition to this article. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not returning 

message: As Ben Mitchell is listed as her uncle, Im a wrong in saying that David Wicks should also be listed. Im only a casual eastenders viewer so i could be wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.154.180 (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: David Wicks, yes is related somewhat, but is not relevant at all to Lucy's storylines. MayhemMario 13:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Then consider removing those people instead of insisting that David is listed in this article. Grant Mitchell is better known as Ben's uncle than David Wicks is as Lucy's, for sure. Also, sometimes edits get missed. –AnemoneProjectors– 15:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family 

message: I would like to begin by apologising if I have upset and annoyed people. That has never been my intention, my only intention is to contribute towards Wikipedia and improve articles involving subjects which I am particularly interested in. However, just because I have been blocked for my actions, that will not stop me from standing up for what I believe is completely right and trying to forge a consensus on facts which I believe certain editors are deliberately ignoring.
I will start with Kathy Beale and why she should be included. Those of you who have been watching EastEnders for a very long time will recall, that Kathy had a major involvement in the Ian's custody case. I will use a few sources:
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYit3XVHND8
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Fs3VfLUeY&playnext=1&list=PL1B973079416F2056&feature=results_video
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ar2iQeDmwM
- These links is Kathy's direct involvement in trying to rescue the Beale kids from Cindy Beale.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CvgCs5c_Vw
- This link shows that Kathy was involved in the storylines regarding Lucy and Mel Owen, often having to look after the kids when Ian was very depressed - a very important storyline.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSIxlVYDaT8
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx9tCFTWP0Q
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kyf5XoJl58
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP1nY3upeXc
- These show Kathy's strong involvement with all her grandchildren - Lucy, Peter and Steven. She even had to go to court for them. All of that is aside from the babysitting, family meals, Christmases and her death which had an effect. I will make my edit, and I hope afer watching all these clips, people will come to realise what I mean and what we can come to an agreement. I'd go as far as to argue that Kathy is more involved to Lucy's storylines, than Bev Williams - in fact that is a fact. So let us all take stock.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, this is not the best thing to do after you were blocked for doing the exact same thing. Well, thanks for the apology. I hope this time around we can work together properly, without edit warring, and with starting discussions if an edit gets reverted, without re-reverting (otherwise I'm sure you can guess what will probably happen). I don't have time right now to watch these videos, but perhaps you're right about Kathy (note I only said "perhaps", this does not mean you are right, this is not consensus, this does not mean you can add her right now and it does not mean I think you are right). What do others think? –AnemoneProjectors– 17:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Im unsure. Ill accept that Kathy was involved in the very early days of Lucy et al's storylines. But how notable it is is debatable. I does seem strange that Den Watts is listed as Denny's grandfather and Kathy is not listed as Lucy's. We do need to be consistent. However we all know that Lucy's 'own storylines' only really started when Melissa Suffield was cast as her... long after Kathy had departed. Maybe it would be useful to have a much wider ranging discussion about which relatives to include in a characters infobox? I am open on this, but would ask all editors to be polite, not edit war and work for, then accept consensus. Bleaney (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come on, Bleaney there is a world of difference. Let's look at your argument. You are saying that Kathy was involved in Lucy's "very early days". That is irrelevant to be honest, because Lucy is one of the shows longest-running characters. Lucy has been in the show since 1993 and Kathy was in the show and a prominent figure in her life from 1993 until 2000. You can say her 'own storylines' but that is a false choice. Her storylines started from when she came on the show for eg. the custody battle. You are really making a false distinction. I urge you to watch the videos, please. You cannot make that argument. The difference between Den Watts and Kathy Beale is that Den Watts was dead when Denny was born, Kathy was alive and an influential figure in Lucy and et al's life until her departure. She helped bring them up. --AngieWattsFan (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am starting to see that this might be a good reason to include Kathy. After all, as AngieWattsFan says, Lucy's a long-term character, and Kathy's a long-running, original character that many people will know of. I do agree with Bleaney as well though. I'm going to watch the videos as a reminder and then I'll get back to you. –AnemoneProjectors– 10:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

text: I've watched some of the videos but I'm not sure they matter. I can't find any news sources that mention are notable connection between these two, though I don't think we can deny that Kathy is a part of Lucy's life. But the question is, is it a notable part? I'm still not entirely convinced. –AnemoneProjectors– 10:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You could apply the same argument to any grandparent in any child's life on EastEnders. Was Peggy that notable to Ben, in reality? Kathy was notable because not only did she help bring up the children (as shown in all of the videos) but she also was part of key storylines such as helping to rescue them from Cindy Beale and went to court to testify agaisnt Cindy for the children's sake. That is a very notable connection, and that would not have happened had she not been involved. The argument regarding Melissa Suffield, is not a substantiated one by a long shot. There is absolutely no reason at all why Kathy should not be mentioned.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Kathy is Lucy's grandparent. She is not an obscure cousin or distant relative and they shared screen time. I think it is basic to include close family if they were shown to acknowledge one another at the least. You would expect those to be included, so without siding with disruption I can see their view. But I also see why this rule was created. But when it is not fending off Character X's great-great aunt who appeared some 20 years earlier - it is blocking basic information, using up time better spent on editing to participate in a discussion... not to mention the edit wars and upset. It feels slightly counterproductive.Rain the 1 13:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that if we were editing these articles in the 1990s, we'd probably have no problem with Kathy being listed. I'm leaning towards her being included now, especially as she testified in court for the children's sake. But in some cases it's more clear that a grandparent shouldn't be included, such as Alice and Reenie Branning, or Bianca Jackson and Pete Beale. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah im thinking Kathy could be included. Bleaney (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then, let's put Kathy back :-) –AnemoneProjectors– 13:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relations to Kathy Beale 

message: There's at least one source that says Lucy will appear somehow in Monday and Tuesday's episode. She might be dead, but that doesn't stop an appearance. There's another source that says Ian has to identify the body. The article currently contradicts these references and I can't keep reverting and fixing it. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last appearance 

message: OK, I have noticed that the classification etc has been changed quite a few times recently.
I've found this which indicates that the "dialogue" from Bywater recently is old dialogue.  So Bywater hasn't returned.  They've been using a body double for the rest.
Here's what I propose:
1) Leave Bywater as portraying Lucy up until 2015.
2) Portrayed as "uncredited" in 2019.
3) Duration to read "1993-2010, 2012-2015, 2019" as I doubt this storyline will go beyond 2019
4) Classification to read "Present, regular" as we never change the classification of a character.  So once regular, always regular.
Alternatively:
Same as above but leave classification as "former, regular" and just update the last appearance.
-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , , , ,  tagging yourselves to make you aware of this discussion and because you've all contributed quite a lot to this article and soap articles.  I've semi-protected the article tonight for a couple of weeks to try and get some sort of consensus on the talk page about this.  Recent edits are well-meaning but edits like this one are starting to break the article.-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess if the character is appearing as a ghost/vision then it's still new footage, so the ibox should be updated as you've proposed. I only undid one edit to the ibox, as I didn't see a source (or the episode). - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My feeling has always been - and feel free to ignore if consensus is otherwise - uncredited appearances should never be in the infobox. That's what the article text is for, and it's immediately confusing for the character's duration to include this year when it isn't really the case (and for that to force a listing as 'Present, regular' too - which will also cause issues at List of EastEnders characters I imagine). The show doesn't consider these full appearances for the character, so I don't see why we should. Regarding the use of Bywater's archive performance, again the question is if she was credited. If yes, it should be treated the same as a new appearance (again, the article text can cover that Bywater didn't return to the show). If not, ignore it. U-Mos (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen one appearance of Bobby's vision of Lucy, I'm assuming there have been more. It was clearly not Hetti Bywater! Looked totally different, even blurry. Just FYI. Anyway, I'm going to agree with U-mos here. I wouldn't even consider this a return by Lucy, because it's not Lucy Beale the character, it's a vision. If she were credited it would be a different matter. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 02:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to follow your second proposal  (or the first if consensus agrees). The character has reappeared, as a vision or whatever it is, but it still is that character and press/media are reporting that too. I agree with  that the "present; regular" status creates confusion at List of EastEnders characters, hence I believe we just update the last appearance as and when. I do, however, believe that uncredited appearances should be included as they are still appearances, something incorporated into the infobox. Also, to note - any archive footage should not be included as an "appearance" since it is not fresh. - Soaper1234 - talk 22:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Having thought about this more and looked up the appearance , I'm leaning towards leaving the ibox as it is and mentioning the visions in the prose somewhere. - JuneGloom07 Talk 19:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2019 return