Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders/Archive 6

message: I am going to write to the EastEnders helpdesk to get some questions answered to aid the project; here they boast that that they can answer almost any question - so I want to know which questions you would like me to include?
The ones I have so far are:
#Can you send me a list of every middle name you have?
#What are Winston, Tracy, Amy, Lydia, "Big" Ron, Ray and Sid's surnames?
#Who played Chris, Helen and Peter Pappas, Kate Chole, Eleanor Trueman, Sean Andrews, Arjun Kapoor, Cindy Williams, Eamonn Flaherty Jr., Stan Dougan, Stephanie Watson, Jasmine O'Brien, Benny Heller, Lauren Whiting, Carol Jenkins, Jessie Williams, Flo Medeemey, Nigel Dean and Adam Steadman? 
I don't have high hopes, but it's worth a try! Feel free to add to the list! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clint's last name would be useful too, and would give us Rosie Miller's maiden name. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EastEnders helpdesk

message: I notice that the character section from the main article is being cited as a reason why people are against it becoming a featured article. I agree that it is reading a bit like a list. It might simply be necessary to say that the cast turn over of characters in EE is quite high (particularly in recent years), and give a few yearly numbers of exits/introductions.
The stuff on family and clans is fine but I was thinking we should attempt to rewrite the rest of this section including more on character archetypes that have basically just been reused throughout EE's history. Like battleaxe/Matriarch, Bitch, tearaways, heartthrob, hopeless causes, victims, losers, long suffering women, hardman, survivors, petty criminals, villians and middleclass misfits/outsiders and controversial characters etc.
We should also perhaps say that EE has always tried to appeal to a broad range of people, and have always included ethnic and social minorities with varying degrees of success.
If everyone agrees with this then I dont mind having a go at rewriting it, so let me know what your thoughts are.Gungadin 20:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I'm gonna cry when I lose all my wonderful refereces in the list, though I agree the list is too much! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go on, make Trampikey cry! The section has needed improving for a while, so go ahead. The referenced list was a nightmare for editing if you wanted to move names around, as I did once! So good riddence to it!! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Article characters section 

message: I have nominated Phil Mitchell and Pete Beale as Good Articles, are there any more you think I should nominate? I was thinking of nominating History of EastEnders - what do you think? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, can't do any harm Gungadin 15:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, what's the worst that can happen? If it doesn't pass, we'll be given some ways to improve it. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nominations 

message: I don't think we should have adoptive family in the character articles' family sections, as we don't have step family, or uncles, aunts etc. who aren't blood related... so I don't think we should have adoptive family either, as they're not blood related... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 17:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's like saying we shouldn't include husbands and wives because they arent blood related. If someone has been adopted then they legally belong to the person who adopted them and they also take on the family name, so it's different from distant step relatives. Also if they are taken off they will continuously be re-added by users who dont know of the policy and it's already bad enough with people re-adding step-relatives and past husbands and wives. So for this reason I dont think its worth it. Gungadin 18:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Gungadin said. A silly suggestion. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I agree. There's no need to be bitchy, Anemone! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe. I think we should include everyone from EastEnders in everyone else's family sections because they're all related anyway. If that's not mentioned in the EastEnders article, it should be! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 00:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ferreiras weren't related to anyone else... neither were the Kapoors... or the Taverniers... or Dr May and Rob the wanker... Liam Butcher is related to everyone though! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 00:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Truemans aren't related to anyone. And the Foxes, unless Denise and Kevin get married. If Dawn ever gives birth then that'll link May and Rob to the Millers, but then again the Millers aren't related to anyone else either... but seriously, I created a family tree linking everyone I could... it has all the Slaters, Mitchells, Beales, Fowlers, Raymonds, Hills, Butchers, Jacksons, Brannings, Wickses, Wattses... 166 people and there's several missing, and I didn't link anyone by casual relationships, only blood relatives, adoptions and marriages... anyway my point is that EastEnders is very incestuous and it's worth mentioning. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 10:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only actual incest that has gone on is Kat and Harry and Joe and Mary (who are second cousins). -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and Clyde and Gidea, who are distant cousins as well... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ian and Elizabeth Beale kind of as well.  Although i don't know how far the romance went, it just mentions a romance on here.  --Sparhelda 15:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because everyone has relationships with everyone else and the majority of characters could be put on one family tree, as I described above, this is why I described it as incestuous, they're all distantly related (not necessarily by blood) in multiple ways. As for actual incest, Tariq snogged his half-sister, and if Sharon and Dennis had grown up together as brother and sister, they would not have been able to get married, despite having no bilogical connection. Sex with your cousin is legal so I'm not sure if that's termed as actual incest. I want them to have an actual incest storyline where a brother and sister who know they are definitely brother and sister (maybe Peter and Lucy in a few years time) have a sexual relationship just for fun with no emotions involved. I know everyone would think it's sick but EastEnders always comes close to incest but never actually does it (apart from Kat and Harry, as uncle-neice incest is illegal, but it was in the past, it was rape and it was just a totally different situation to what I'm thinking of). — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I recommend Brookside? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so sure about that Anemone.  Trampikey mentioned Brookside there and it was that incest storyline along with a few other things which changes people's views on it an gradually lead to its breakdown.  I suppose it would be an interesting move to see how it goes but i think there's a risk of critisism and people changing their views of the show.  Corontation Street is the only soap that i can think of that hasn't dealt with any incest, even with distant cousins.  Could well be wrong though.  But lets just say incest is a very controversial issue.--Sparhelda 19:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never watched Brookside so I don't know anything about it. Is that the reason why it ended? Perhaps it is too controversial to be on pre-watershed television and shouldn't be in EastEnders. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it didn't end because of that specificly but there were a few rather sensationalist storylines like the first pre-watershed lesbian kiss along with that which made it lose alot of popularily as it was extremley popular in the 80s.  It ended cause the viewers and ratings were going down but it seems the 90s storylines like the incest one killed it.  If Eastenders were to do it I would hope it would be a new family that we know nothing about so it may seem less disturbing.  I know you suggested Peter and Lucy perhaps but it would be weird considering they've been in the show since they were babies and seen them growing up together.--Sparhelda 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops, you did mention Kareena and Tariq. The Brookside characters were Nat and Georgia Simpson, by the way. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adoptive family in family sections? 

message: Is incorrect grammar. I say we should try and get this ridiculous rule changed, it doesn't make sense to say that a character who hasn't appeared for 19 years (and is dead!) is a character in EastEnders... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The incorrect grammar is saying he "was", the episodes still very much exist, as I see on UKTV Gold. If you can provide citation the episodes no longer exist though.. also see WP:WAF. Matthew 21:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The character no longer appears in the current continuity of the show, so is no longer in EastEnders, she is in EastEnders from the past, but as EastEnders is a continuous show, and continues to produce new episodes, she does not appear in the current show, and therefore is not a character in EastEnders, she's a character from EastEnders, so saying she was in is acceptable grammar as well. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not appearing in the latest episodes does not mean a character does not star in episodes any more, ever wondered why on DVDs for movies, etc, it says starring, not starred? I'll let you figure it out.. Matthew 22:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The character does not appear in the current continuity, so saying that she is a character in the show is misleading, as if she appears from beyond the grave. The sentence "Lou Beale is a character in the popular BBC soap opera EastEnders, who appeared from the show's inception on 19 February 1985 until the character's death on 26 July 1988." does not make sense, as she is no longer in the show. We have never had a problem before with the way our 500+ articles are worded, as it is grammatically correct! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree, and it makes perfect sense to me. Matthew 22:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We're talking about a continuous series, not a film, she is no longer in the show. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes the character is, the episodes exist, repeats air, thus the character is. Matthew 22:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is is, all works of fiction ARE present-tense..Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 22:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But in a work of fiction that has been going for 22 years - the whole 22 years cannot be the present, especially as it runs in real time, unlike a one-off show (for example) without a specified time setting. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Autons haven't appeared in any new stories of Doctor Who since 2005, "were" they an enemy in Doctor Who, regardless that the episodes still exist? Matthew 22:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, they were, as they do not appear in the serial anymore. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, Dr. Who isn't the best example to use, as there have been two distinct incarnations of it, and it doesn't follow a set time pattern, as EastEnders does. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Trampikey on this, I think because EastEnders is set in real time, it should be considered to be more like news events where the past is the past, rather than episodes of Lost or Desperate Housewives. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 10:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lou Beale is a character in ''EastEnders''" 

message: The image on Robbie Jackson doesn't illustrate what Robbie looks like properly... it's a more comedic picture than anything. Also, the picture on Ian Beale's infobox is a picture of Adam Woodyatt talking to camera in the square, not of Ian... (Sorry, I didn't know where to post this, so I came here...) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, do you think you are possibly being a bit too picky? Gungadin 20:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in the fair use rationale it says that it illustrates the subject of the article, which the Robbie one doesn't do acurately, and the Ian one illustrates Adam Woodyatt, not Ian Beale... (OMG, I've taken over from AnemoneProjectors as the cratchety old man!) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've uploaded a new Ian one, but I don't have any episodes with Robbie in (I don't think) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I do think you are perhaps being a little pedantic. The robbie image shows what Robbie looked like, albeit with highlights, but it's still what he looked like. all characters change the way they look throughout the course of the show. It's still illustrating the character, so the fair use rationale is accurate. More importantly it was the clearest image of Robbie I was able to take...But...I have since managed to take a more recent one, so I will upload just for you ;) but I might keep the other one of him in the article somewhere, to illustrate him in his younger days. The Ian one was due for a change anyway, as he no longer has a skinhead.Gungadin 21:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol thanks :), Do you think the one I uploaded of Ian is OK? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh it's fine, I hadnt noticed how old Adam Woodyatt was looking until I saw that pic. The robbie one is done too.Gungadin 21:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OMG, I've taken over from AnemoneProjectors as the cratchety old man - well, somebody has to as I'm not going to be around much and I don't know how long it'll be until I can edit on a regular basis again. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And talking about Robbie, did you know there's more information about Wellard on Wikipedia than there is on Robbie Jackson?! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wellard's better. And he's been there longer! Come back soon AP! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wellard's cuter! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: But you went home with Wellard instead? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well he tried it on, but I was otherwise engaged with Ghengis.Gungadin 23:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer Betty myself. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't beat Terrence! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Lou failed GA Talk:Lou Beale the reasons don't seem too difficult to fix, but I cant do anything about the appearance of the images, because the quality of episodes as old as this are generally quite bad. I have another image of Lou c.1987 I'll do some swapping around. 
With regard to this tense problem, it seems we are going to have to comply with the present tense rule if we want to promote it. Maybe we can change the top line to "Lou Beale is a fictional character that appeared in the BBC soap opera EastEnders from 1985-1988", which would still infer that it is a past character. 
Does the storylines section have to be written in present tense as well? This is such a stupid rule. It will sound so stupid saying "Lou dies in her sleep".Gungadin 14:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AnemoneProjectors and I both agree that this is a stupid rule (see above), as EastEnders is in real time, as opposed to Lost etc. - the person who failed the GA nomination is the person who wants us to comply with this rule, which I am not going to do, as it is not logical or correct grammar to refer to something that happened 20-odd years ago in present tense. So if they fail for that reason, so be it, but I refuse to use incorrect grammar, even if it is the rules. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 15:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that it is a stupid rule, but changing was to is at the top of the article is not that much of a big deal, especially not if we use that example I put above, which is grammatically correct also. Lots of hard work goes into these articles and it's a shame that we wont get any recognition for that because we refuse to comply with policy.Gungadin 15:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the rule, your sentence would have to say "appears" instead of "appeared". I'm not going to change any of the character articles. As you said, we put a lot of work into these articles, however, I'm not going to change them to incorrect grammar just to please policy nazis who obviously can't see that it's bad grammar and incorrect. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 15:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rule needs to be changed for ongoing serials like soap operas.Gungadin 16:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does, but raising it would cause conflict, and you, me and the absent Anemone aren't going to get it changed, and if we raised it anywhere it would probably result in us having to change 500+ articles into present tense! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lou failed too

message: I'm going to update all the current character articles; so I need to have a checklist, so I'm putting it here - feel free to help me out!
 = Up to date
 = Out of date
 = May be in need of an update
Character       	Done?	
Ian Beale       	     	
Dot Branning    	     	
Pat Evans       	     	
Phil Mitchell   	     	
Peggy Mitchell  	     	
Lucy Beale      	     	
Peter Beale     	     	
Ben Mitchell    	     	
Jim Branning    	     	
Billy Mitchell  	     	
Charlie Slater  	     	
Garry Hobbs     	     	
Mo Harris       	     	
Patrick Trueman 	     	
Minty Peterson  	     	
Gus Smith       	     	
Mickey Miller   	     	
Bobby Beale     	     	
Yolande Trueman 	     	
Jane Collins    	     	
Darren Miller   	     	
Keith Miller    	     	
Stacey Slater   	     	
Jean Slater     	     	
Naomi Julien    	     	
Dawn Swann      	     	
Honey Mitchell  	     	
Deano Wicks     	     	
Bradley Branning	     	
Kevin Wicks     	     	
Carly Wicks     	     	
Bert Atkinson   	     	
Chelsea Fox     	     	
Denise Fox      	     	
Libby Fox       	     	
Rob Minter      	     	
Max Branning    	     	
Tanya Branning  	     	
Abi Branning    	     	
Lauren Branning 	     	
Sean Slater     	     	
Janet Mitchell  	     	
Stella Crawford 	     	
May Wright      	     	
Preeti Choraria 	     	
Li Chong        	     	
Shirley Carter  	     	
Jay Brown       	     	
-Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big update 

message: this killed me! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhh that's a shame. I assume it's a family tree of everyone. That woud have been so cool. Gungadin 19:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made one myself weeks ago, looks similar to that one, I think it's used the same software, but mine is maybe a bit clearer. But I can't access it cos my home comptuer's dead. I didn't put the generations together as a normal family tree as it would be too messy and also impossible as they're all mixed up anyway. I could attempt to recreate it. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 12:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ugh 

message: Apparently, in What's On TV, it confirms his return, as well as new photoshoot pictures being listed under "EastEnders" at the BBC photo publicity site... do we take this as confirmation and list him as soon to return? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh if it's on the BBC site then he must be coming back, but there's no real rush if you wanna wait for another source. Gungadin 23:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Legg 

message: --Sparhelda 21:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As suggested on the Pauline talk page, cut out the long winded sentences added by certain users (note that Dot's article needs some of that treatment *ahem*) but leave it mainly how it is, I think we could probably cut down and merge the "deception and reclusiveness" and "death" sections in Pauline's article, but I don't think they should be cut down as drastically as Elonka suggested, 500-1000 words simply cannot do justice to 22 years. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  500-1000 is a guideline, so if it goes more than that, it's not necessarily a problem, as long as it's tied in to real-world context.  But when there's paragraph after paragraph of straight plot summary, with no reference other than "Episode X," I think that's excessive.  The goal of the article should be to describe the cultural significance of the character, with links to outside sources which discuss this significance.  The plot summary in a Wikipedia article is meant only to give an overview and context, not to provide a detailed character biography. --Elonka 14:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The things is, in the UK almost every plot on EastEnders makes headlines in the press, and i'm not just talking about episode summary, but critiques, reviews, interviews, spoilers and ratings are all regularly featured. It would be possible to site a press source for almost every plot on that page. The references which direct to episode summaries were used to prove that the plot happened in the way that we say it has - to prove no original research. If we didn't use those, then I believe we are required to give off-line refs in the form of episodes and air dates, as well as details on writers, directers and producers. Using episode summaries is a lot easier and allows others to verify that the plot actually happened.Gungadin 20:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, the "Character background" section of the Pauline Fowler article is excellent.  It summarizes the plot, and includes real-world context. I've got no problem with that section of the article. The problem is the "Storyline" section (currently at 4,500 words) which duplicates a lot of the information in the background section, and goes into excessive detail.  In my opinion, that whole section could probably be cut from the article.  If someone really wants the detailed plot, they can go to the BBC site. --Elonka 07:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they can't as it's not on the BBC site. It can't be cut, it covers 22 years worth of on-screen, though I understand where you're coming from saying that some of it is duplicated. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have a problem with it. Characters rely on storylines, so the storylines have to be there as they make the character. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well i'm not too bothered either way, but we might have to change our rules following all this. There will be no point in people spending ages writing a detailed storyline section, if Elonka or someone else is going to tag the articles everytime. We cant keep fighting the overzealous policy-pushers forever (no offence meant), no matter how much we might disagree with them.Gungadin 12:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we'll change them if they're tagged, removing the sections completely is not the answer. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: With the Dot one we planned to cut all of the crap added by Sparhelda and then add some stuff about her early days, like her baby dying, etc. I agree 100% that people come to read the storylines, and the "overzealous policy-pushers" (offence meant) don't seem to be able to get their heads round that. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry. :( --Sparhelda 21:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storyline Length 

message: I'm about to start making the last minor list for 95-99, merging some of the characters we already have. I was planning on merging ones like Sue Branning and Jack Price. Before I do I wanted to check whether it's ok for me to merge them, because the family nav templates have recently been added. Would it be ok to just put the templates at the bottom of the list page? Gungadin 21:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just remove the template all together. We don't have the templates on Joan Garwood or Ayse Osman. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the templates don't belong on the minor characters pages, but the redirects can stay in the templates as they are. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  95-99 

message: #Minor characters - why are they rated as high importance?
#Minor characters - can they be in alphabetical order so I know where to add characters?
#Trampikey still needs to add crying stuff to Tomas' article.
#Can we add somewhere that Michelle Collins won't allow her children to watch?
#The spelling "Covalenco" appears to be a guess. I would suggest "Kovalenko" as there are several people on Wikipedia with that name, but no Covalencos. A Google search gives similar results.
#Is is possible for discussions to take place here or on the talk page of the relevant article rather than on user talk pages?
#I can't rememeber the other thing I wanted to mention but if I remember it I'll let you all know. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 11:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps alphabetical order should be considered. If AnemoneProjectors is finding the current order confusing, then others who are less familiar with the show/project will find it even more confusing. I dont mind either way, but my only concern is that we dont know the correct dates for all the characters, so there may be errors in their order anyway.Gungadin 14:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It goes better with the article titles if we do them in date order. If they were in alphabetical order, surely we'd have "List of minor EastEnders characters A-F" etc. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm okay on date order for the longer descriptions, as long as there's a master alphabetical list somewhere that links to the proper pages.  Otherwise it's necessary to go hunting through the different pages to try and figure out where a particular character is (as I was doing earlier today for the redlinked names among Pauline's suitors). --Elonka 22:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The master list List of past EastEnders characters is also in order of last appearance. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few thoughts 

message: Is it actually necessary to say who is deceased in the family sections? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. You wanna remove them all? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I just wondered what the actual reason was for saying they're deceased, it seems to be another one of those things that has always been that way and never been questioned. I can probably use AWB to remove them all, if we all agree that it's not really needed. I'm undecided actually. Need to know what others think. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason it may be useful is for dead unseen characters who will never get their own article, or where someones death is not mentioned in the prose of any article, such as Colin Russell and his dead mum.  I suppose it would make the family section less irritating to type out if they werent there. Im not fussed either way though.Gungadin 23:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it was dead unseen characters that made me undecided. Perhaps we should keep it as it is then. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 10:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deceased family 

message: The official website is annoying me. The news section no longer has old news stories so any that we've used as referenecs are no longer available, I don't know if current and future news stories will be deleted when they're old as well. Also the questions and answers section has gone, which we may have also used for references. Just something to watch out for. We use a lot of the news stories in the portal, so perhaps we should try to use other sources for that instead. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 09:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, in my opinion Digital Spy is the best source. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree or whatever source we find first, normally the official website is the last to be updated anyway! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 11:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Ugh, Dawn's baby's going to annoy me having Unknown next to her name. How did you find out Dylan and Tyler Woolf's names? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the local news article, should be referenced in Tomas' article. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official website 

message: Is it notable enough to put anywhere that Chelsea's nipple was visible in last night's EastEnders? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if you get a screenshot! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in today's Sun newspaper so I'd say yes actually. They had a screenshot. Where should it be mentioned though? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nipplegate? 

message: Dirty Den and Angie. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete it? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an OK article, and we've kept Shannis. Maybe it can be improved? Molfie needs to be deleted, by the way. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably should keep it then, I'll probably read it tomorrow. I found a guideline on supercouples earlier, it's Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Notable couples. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do we do about this article?