Talk:EastEnders/Archive 1

message: I have cleared up confusion between the postal district E20, and the club E20, by removing the parenthesised comment about the club.  The sentence as is stood, seemed to be saying that the postal district was renamed Angie's Den, which is clearly  nonsensical.
Re: "Walford has the postal district of E20, thus fans have also tried to pinpoint the location using this.".
London postal districts are alphabetical, not geographical. E16 = Victoria Dock, E17 = Walthamstow. E18 = Woodford. If the postal district is also called Walford, it would be E16½! TiffaF 10:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening comments

message: Hey, since it is displaying the message the page is not the preferred article size do we need to cut part of it off into a new section?
I'm thinking the cast section should be removed and have it's own section possibly... as it is one of the longest sections which doesn't really add anything. The present cast is also listed at the info box at the top so is therfore just repeating the information.
Anybody else have anything to say? Thanks User:EastEnders the great
:Yeah, I'm not a big fan of huge cast lists on wikipedia. I think that's the kind of thing we link to the IMBD. Since the Coronation Street article is a featured article, we should try and follow that as much as possible. The JPS 18:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page 34 KB long... 

message: Firstly, most of the content of this section does not relate to that of disasters.
DEFINITION: A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society causing widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses which exceed the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources.
A disaster by definition would be something like the terrible Kashmir earthquake in Pakistan recently.
Secondly, most of the content has or can be mentioned in the storylines section.
Thirdly, because of the size of the EastEnders article we really need to be strict on the content in it, this section in particular is repetitive.
This section is vague and whilst could be informative just adds to the weight of the article, something the article has slowly been moving towards is of a more contextual and historic, anything other than this, that is directly relevant to EastEnders should either be removed or have its own article created like many already have in the past - BUT only if these added articles are needed and again, provide useful information.
I feel that sections such as 'Disasters in Walford' and the rather plain 'DVD and Videos' (which I admit - I made! :P) are more suited to an ordinary website, we need to create something unique - and following in the example of the Coronation Street article, whether featured article or not should not be the aim. Most of the content of that article has become the slush that is just about cleared from the EastEnders article.
EastEnders the great 01:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Disasters" in Walford 

message: What does 'which was originally developed by a series of pictures' mean?--StN 18:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening image 

message: Things to address in order to go further (like FA) :
* Article needs better references (or if the Further reading section was used for the article it should be in the reference section).
* Trivia section needs trimming. Like #2 to #5 should be regrouped or placed in a subsection titled Reception under Viewership.
Lincher 03:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA awarded

message: Why are the house numbers missing in Albert Square. Were they knocked down during the war or something? Pauline's house is 45, but there aren't 45 houses in Albert Square?--SimonPeter 15:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very good question. I did wonder, but I don't know why. Have a look at list of addresses in EastEnders and also the map of Albert Square. The map doesn't make much sense to me, as there are lots of numbers missing that have actually been lived in in the show. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Albert Square 

message: Does anyone know if there are any plans for the following characters to return?
* Nick Cotton
* Sharon Rickman
* Lisa Fowler
* Melanie Owen
* Kat Moon
* Alfie Moon
* Grant Mitchell
—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexWilkes (talk • contribs) 
:There are no plans for Sharon and Kat to return (this has been officially confirmed). It is unlikely that any of the others will return. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't use Wikipedia as a forum. Talk pages are there to discuss the article, not to speculate about the topic. Thank you. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 22:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CHARACTERS TO RETURN? 

message: Why has the actor of Peter Beale changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.5 (talk • contribs) 
:Pass. Wikipedia is not a forum. Try Google. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Beale 

message: How do we know it's ever going to end? We thought it would stop months ago, but they kept adding more. Can this be re-written? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The influx of new characters is now nearing the end" 

message: This article is obviously too long. I think it could be trimmed down or split up into multiple articles BadtoGood 23:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been, History of EastEnders was created, but none of the other sections are sufficient enough to create a new article. I think it is fine how it is at the moment, actually. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 15:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Trampikey, but if we were to split off another section, "Viewership" is the longest. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Long 

message: Is the extensive cast list really necessary as part of the infobox? A link to the full cast list would suffice.  The fussy list looks clumsy and is hard to read in the context in which it currently appears.  Articles for Coronation Street, Emmerdale and Hollyoaks all make use of a link to another article, and I think EastEnders should too. Ben 14:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No views on the matter? The page is 64 kilobytes long (twice as long as any other British soap articles on Wikipedia - only beaten by Hollyoaks).  I would have thought that the WikiProject would be looking to condense the article where possible. Surely this is a starting point? Ben 03:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, I must say I don't like your provocative nature. Secondly, this article is much better than the articles for Emmerdale and Hollyoaks (and I think Coronation Street too, I don't think it deserves FA status) - so I don't think it should be compared to them as if they are on the same level. The infobox has always worked fine how it was, and the WikiProject is always open to suggestions, but you're going the wrong way about it becoming arrogant and causing a confrontation. Also, there's a guideline on Wikipedia called "Be bold" - which in a nutshell means "if in doubt, fix it" - I suggest you read that page. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 11:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not being provocative, if you think I am then I apologise, but my suggestions are not to be interpreted as such.  I grouped EastEnders with other British serial dramas because they are of the same genre - surely Wikipedia strives for uniformity? I am dismayed that you feel I am being so 'arrogant' and you may note that I was bold and edited the page, only for it to be quickly reverted. So, I made a suggestion on the talk page which was ignored for almost 3 days. You will also find that Coronation Street no longer has FA status, but I'm working on it. Ben 16:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggestion was not being ignored. Not everyone is available at this time of year. To be honest, I did think I had replied already. Although I've reverted your changes to the cast list, I only did so because I believe we should discuss it first. I think giving a link to the list of characters would be better, not only to keep the infobox shorter, but the list of characters is better maintained than the list here, which is sometimes left out of date. So I'm in favour of a single link. How about you, Trampikey? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise for not adding a discussion to the Talk Page before editing, but I thought my edit was justifiable since other British soaps follow the same procedure.  I understand how important your WikiProject is, and I was only trying to help the general appearance of the article and, of course, its size (I am a bit of a size-freak...no pun intended!).Ben 16:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean size queen :) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast list 

message: the set designers and researchers really need to go into London a bit more. esp when it comes to study a tube map..
Tuesday 23 Jan esp of eastenders with the kidnapping of Ben shows Martin and Ben on the railway bridge, with 2 goofs, in the past its shown as a normal (nat rail) not a tube bridge so therefore it should of been overhead cables because that line by their current location is running c2c trains.
to further the goof, and the stupidity of the researchers/designers the trains that where (poorly) CGI'ed in seemed to be Northern Line trains instead of District Line or Hammersmith and city lines. they say that walford east is ment to be the real life Bromley-by-Bow station which is runs on the District line and H&C
also has any londoner notice that not one person in walford owns or even mentions owning an oyster card 82.24.175.199 19:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the CGI was good. I don't think it matters too much what train was used. Bradley Branning mentioned on his "lucky day" that he lost his wallet containing (amongst other things) his oyster card. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes they were too close to the train to not be affected by it. It's a soap opera, not a train spotters guide. Since when have soaps been realistic? There's nothing wrong with taking a bus to school. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's fiction. Not real life. Get over it. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well they could have made more effort but in the end it doesn't matter. As for the Oyster cards, have we ever seen the children getting on the bus? Oyster cards work on buses too. If we haven't seen it we can't assume they don't use them. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: May I turn your attention to the notice at the top of this page; "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Therefore, please shut up! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 15:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be civil. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goofs 

message: "it is shown on RTÉ One at the same time as BBC One, which is also widely received in the country. This sometimes creates the situation whereby RTÉ completes the airing of an episode before the BBC (usually only by a few seconds, or minutes at most). This is due to the same scheduled start times for the episodes (also differs by several seconds or minutes), but different advertisement formats which causes one to always marginally finish before the other."
How can this be possible when there are no adverts on the BBC?
:Ah, but there are - the BBC runs a few trailers between programmes DBD 21:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong 

message: So, on this line:
"Other recurring characters... are... bitches such as Cindy Beale and Janine Evans..."
Is the use of the word "bitches" not offensive in the UK?
--Thomas B 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, awards for 'Best Bitch' are given out at soap awards, so I guess so. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 09:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "bitches" 

message: Are we certain that these characters are definitely being cast? Has there been confirmation by the BBC? The announcement was made from a tabloid so I was wondering how reliable it was? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.244.3 (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. This is not a forum. 2. It has been in two tabloids on the same day, so it's very very unlikely to be a coincidence. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the two tabloids thing, but I don't see this being used as a forum, the anonymous user is just making sure our sources are reliable enough. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I am assuming they are Clive's children as no other brothers have been mentioned. I take it Clive was also the only one seen on the family tree on Ben's bedroom wall. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether he was on Ben's wall, but he appeared when Louise was renamed... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben's wall has been seen a few times recently, perhaps we could try to get a screen shot, and see if we can enhance it. I bet Roxy and Ronnie aren't on it. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to get one. I know that Pauline, Michelle, Martin and Mark are on it for some reason - I think it's because Ian's related to them, because Phil doesn't know about Mark Jr. It was good when it was first seen though, we got Kathy's parents names, Peggy's parents names, and proved that the scriptwriters don't read the website; on there Eric's parents are listed as Harry and Eva, on the wall they're Robert and Sandra. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ronnie and Roxy 

message: :Image:EastEnders Radiotimes 3nights.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:EastEnders Radiotimes 3nights.jpg

message: Any ideas why the credits rolled the old way tonight? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd guess that they've been changed. I like it, easier to read. Another of Santer's good improvements I say! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It freaked me out and it's not easier to read when they squeeze it down into a tiny box, at least before they only squashed it to half a page! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New guidelines, bbc.co.uk/commissioning. And this is not a Forum. AxG @ ►talk 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't using Wikipedia as a forum, the reason might have been worth mentioning in the article. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credits 

message: Regarding the cultural significance of the television show EastEnders, it plays a prominent role in the song of Ian Hunter (formerly the front-man of the 1970s band Mott the Hoople) titled "Dead Man Walking (EastEnders)" from his 2001 album titled Rant.  On an album that received favorable reviews (ranging from good to a masterpiece), this song is most often cited as being the highlight of this album/CD.  The overall theme of the album is Ian Hunter's take on the United Kingdom at the start of the new millennium.  Other songs that fit this theme on the CD include "Wash Us Away," "Death of a Nation," and "Morons."  In Ian Hunter's song "Dead Man Walking (EastEnders)" he sings of aging, with  the fear of becoming obsolete obscure and forgotten, all the while singing "this ain't EastEnders, it's the real thing."  Regarding the song, Ian Hunter has been quoted as saying that he considers this to be one of his finest songs, which seems to be the consensus from both fans and rock music critics.  In a 3 CD retrospective of his work, THE JOURNEY: A RETROSPECTIVE OF MOTT THE HOOPLE AND IAN HUNTER, Ian Hunter writes of "Dead Man Walking (EastEnders)": "This is brutal self-assessment.  I like the sound of this.  I like the piano."  Full lyrics to the song can be found at: []  
For more information about Ian Hunter and his solo discography, www.ianhuter.com is a fine place to start.
75.6.227.233 03:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ian Hunter's Use of "EastEnders" 

message: This article is so biased against the show!!! It totally underestimates the absolute success this show has received in Europe and even more in the US. You won't find one teenager in the States who doesn't avidly follow each episode of this British masterpiece. Ditto in Europe. Last year, a young american teenager from Duluth, Minnesota committed suicide because she had missed one episode and was terrified that her friends at school would ostracize her as a result. After it was made public that she had deliberately skipped watching one episode, protests and marches were organized in front of her parents home. People came in from all over the World demanding that the entire family be executed, especially the 2 month old baby whose fever had kept the girl away from the TV at the time of the show. Her parents decided to have the funeral cancelled. The girl's body was hauled to an undisclosed location in a remote part of Alaska, where it was left to the wilderness. Yes, my British friends, yes indeed, your show is THAT popular! Last night, a Palestinian woman was moaning on television about the Israeli military operation in Gaza: "if they don't want to give us food, medical attention, or even peace, I don't care. But, please, please, I beg them not to cancel the broadcast of the EastEnders. Allah the almighty, take my children, take my husband, but don't take that wonderful British show away from me".  /end{sarcasm}   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.207.252 (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Can we get this locked down? Thanks, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Meaning what, exactly? anemone│projectors 20:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that, but I think you are incorrect.  If you work it out, there must be at least 4000.  Actually, History of EastEnders doesn't record when it went to 3 and then 4 times a week, but those events occurred long enough ago to have since clocked up a significant number of episodes. Stephenb (Talk) 07:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, hang on, its in the main article under "Scheduling": "EastEnders output then increased to three times a week, on 11 April 1994. EastEnders then added its fourth episode (shown on Fridays) on 6 August 2001". Simple maths should enable you to calculate that there must have been at least 4,000 episodes just from that. Stephenb (Talk) 07:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the citation in the article (which unfortunately no longer works) was added on the 12th June 2007 by an editor called "Matthew".  Although it was briefly disputed then, the number of episodes at that time was determined from an official BBC source.  Since then, the numbers have been incremented as new episodes have been shown. That all said, I have some doubts about the original source myself, which is now unverifiable.  And I have been doing some simple maths since I my last bold post, and I can't make 4000+ add up either.  Would any other editors care to comment? Stephenb (Talk) 12:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is a few months old but, 700 from March 2007 till 18th April 2008. no way, there are 4 episodes a week, which makes 220 in 13 months, not 700. you know, its almost as if someone got out their calcultor put 4X52X22 which is 4576 and changed it not realising that there has not always been 4 eps a week. 
In the 2 eps per week days there would have been 100ish eps per year and so on. It doesn't quite add up to 4000. That article on here about the episodes is surprisingly accurateish. This is the closest that matches up with a complete archive of EastEnders episodes that I know is in existence. So it's impossible for there to be more than 4000 given this archive is complete. My issue is that the episode count is now nearer to 5000 which is very unrealistic. ITV soap Emmerdale is soon to celebrate its 5000th episode and it's been on 5/6 times a week for years.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.98.81 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I think we should remove it. Clearly we cant verify. We cant even use common sense to total the number, because there's been times when an episode is cancelled for whatever reason, or extra episodes are added or merged. Like Bianca's leaving week in 1999, where there was something like 6 episodes including an hour long one.  For what it's worth, we know for certain that the 1,000th episode aired on 12 July 1994, Debbie and Nigel's wedding :) Gungadin 12:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I remeber during the 1990s sometime, they started to repeat EE from the beginning on the shitty "Good Morning with Anne and Nick". God knows how many episodes they showed, but these might not have been excluded in the count from the BBC programme catalogue.Gungadin 13:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, that list is one out anyway, cos the 1000th episode is there as 11 July, when various sources say it was the 12, including an EE book I have and walford.net If it's not 100% accurate and we know it isn't, then I don't think we should be putting it in. Hopefully EE will do a big celebratory episode like Emmerdale is doing when they reach a certain number of episodes, which will be covered in the media. Or an official source will turn up that doesn't rely on us to do the calculations, then we can go on and count from there. Until then I dont think it should go in, but that's just my opinion. Gungadin 15:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Walford.net doesn't have all of the episodes though, there's a lot of gaps. Did you take that into account? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh, Walford.net has whole years missing. I really think it should just be removed. If we cant verify it, then it shouldnt be on here. When the do a celebratory episode that's covered in the media, we will have a reference point to count from. Unless someone can be arsed to email the BBc help desk about it or something.GunGagdinMoan 22:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  there are alot from the early years missing 1988-1992, but from the 1000th on July 12th 1994 there are no episodes missing, even if there is no description, it tells you what date the episodes were on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.156.204 (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of episodes

message: Regarding the Paedophlia storyline involving Tony, Whitney and Lauren this article states 'This was the first time a British soap had addressed paedophilia.' This statement is untrue as far as I'm aware. Mandy on Hollyoaks was molested by her father and wasn't Sarah Platt groomed by that guy who also played the hairdresser in Brookside? Sinbad on Brookside was also accused of molesting a child although I believe this was later proven to be a lie. Therefore to say that no British show has ever addressed paedophlia in any of its forms is untrue and thus I feel this statement should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matty3891 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Matty.  I personally don't watch those soaps, so I don't know, but I have no objection to the sentence (or whole paragraph) being removed as it is uncited - you could do this too! Stephenb (Talk) 11:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Critique Section

message: hii dosnt Dot count as a character thats been there from the beginning? my dad says she does.--89.240.195.232 (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your dad is not a reliable source. Dot first appeared on 4 July 1985 and the first episode was on 19 February 1985, so no, she doesn't count. You can tell your dad that. anemone│projectors 22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Nope. You can see the book EastEnders: The Inside Story (among others) for how they developed and introduced the character Stephenb (Talk) 07:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember watching the show from the start, and she was not in it initially. Then, suddenly, having maybe having missed one episode, there's this strange woman in the Queen Vic sipping an orange juice and chatting with Den as if they had always known each other. Dialogue noted that this was Nick's mother: Dot had been launched into the show as if she had always been there and was soon a main player in proceedings. Format (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: She was always mentioned as Pauline's colleague at the launderette; until she first appeared, around episode 40 IIRC, many people probably assumed she was never going to appear and be a running joke (rather like Mr Popadopoulis, who did eventually appear, only to be killed off some years later and his son, the next Mr Popadopoulis, then appeared!).  When she appeared as Nick's mother, I was quite shocked! Stephenb (Talk) 16:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first Mr. Papadopoulos never appeared in the serial, but his son did. See Andonis Papadopoulos. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, Wikipedia is wrong :) I distinctly remember the first one appearing for an episode or so back in the late eighties, I think.  But of course, my memory is not citable :) Stephenb (Talk) 06:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: He was bald, yes, thought I don't remember how tall he was. I *think* he was planning on closing the launderette down, and I'm pretty sure it was only one brief appearance. Can't swear to exactly when though, sadly. I have a few clippings from the eighties at home, which was when I was a really big fan, so I'll have a browse through if I remember tonight, he may be in a cast list... Stephenb (Talk) 11:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters 

message: Have made a comment on that discussion page regarding a clean-up, please refer to and let me know whether it's a good idea or not. Cheers. Sauber F1 fan since 1997 (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: only needed archiving.GGMoan 19:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Eastenders > Characters > Discussion

message: Thank you all for your hard work! I've now passed EastEnders GA reassessment, and updated the templates at the top of the page. Nice work ;)
For future development, making use of the templates on WP:CITET for cites and references would help to format them all consistently - this would be a fairly major task though (!), and is not in any case a GA requirement. EyeSereneTALK 08:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA sweep pass

message: It strikes me this is too long - do we really need to know when EE was nominated?  Does it all need to be in tables?  The wins in the first set of tables is also neatly summarised in the last table.  This section should either be abstracted to a separate article, have its tables pruned or re-written as prose (there's a lot of duplication  - surely it could be summarised in sentences such as "EastEnders has won the XXX award 3 times (in 199x, 199y & 199z)". I might do this later today. Stephenb (Talk) 13:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I have removed all of the awards given to a cast member, character or crew member, since these were not awarded to the soap itself (which the article is about). Stephenb (Talk) 15:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have kept all of them in, but move the entire table to a new article called List of awards and nominations received by EastEnders. The other awards were for work done on EastEnders so they should still be listed. anemone│projectors 20:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that that article already exists, only with a different name. I've moved it now. It needs cleaning up, with references. The table on this article can be removed, but we must make sure all awards on this page are on that page, with their references. anemone│projectors 20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Awards section

message: Does anyone know why they replaced last nights episode of Eastenders with Crimewatch?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.247.207 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schedule change 

message: Someone has created an article for this child who has never made an appearance. I'm seriously tempted to just go ahead and redirect it, but I thought I'd throw it out there for people to give an opinion. So....? Sky83 (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to be redirected, Sharon Rickman perhaps? GunGagdinMoan 18:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dennis Rickman Jr.]] now has an article 

message: In the recent disasterous marriage between Peggy and Archie Peggy called Archie 'Archie Mitchell' but Peggy was Peggy Mitchell before the marriage. Can someone explain this please because I am confused. Thanks.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 14:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Archie is the brother of Peggy's first husband, Eric Mitchell (Phil, Grant and Sam's father). Hope that helps. anemone│projectors 14:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, thanks a lot. More incest in Albert Square. It isn't the first time. :-)  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 16:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not incest, but yeah. anemone│projectors 16:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current storyline (Early April 2009) 

message: What can we do to imoprove this page? I think the criticism needs work, as do other sections. currently, it's like every single comment about the show has been included. I would like to weed out some of the less important stuff, or at least cover them by theme more succinctly. Not every criticism deserves mention in the article, and I sometimes think some things are added just so a character/actor can be linked to from this page.GunGagdinMoan 16:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. I hate this page. I doubt it should still be considered GA standard. I don't know what else we could do, but I think maybe splitting of the history of EastEnders page was a mistake. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have watched the show in sections (1985-1989; 1993-2001 intermittently). But when I come to this article to see how the show is shaping up these days (who are the main characters, has its style has changed to more comedy or less, is it still popular?) that isn't really clear at all. The page is disorganised and needs to be more sectioned-up. Format (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we get ideas from the Coronation Street article? I always thought that looked much neater than this one. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You think more sections, Format? What sections would you like to see? The article says an awful lot, but not an awful lot of it is particularly useful to people who don't already watch the show. I think copying the Corrie format may be an idea, but then, we'd have to sections on storylines by decade, which are possibly more appropriate for the history of EE article. What about sections that people like? Is there any? GunGagdinMoan 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that long current sections could be broken into smaller ones. I did make some such changes, and will look at making some more maybe. Just to break the long stretches of information into smaller chunks. Overall it seems to me the article switches between broad strokes descriptions ("the show features gritty realism") and specific descriptions ("the show started with an idea of clans, such as the one led by Lou Beale"). I think it could help if things specific to only one period of the show were more delinated from the big broad descriptions of the entire series. Format (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements 

message: on archie and peggys after party danielle said to ronnie that she is her mum and danielle said she had a locket like hers and ronnie said show me then ronnie saw the locket then she ran and danielle got ran over by janine and danielle died.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.99.81 (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ronnie is danielles mum and danielle dies 

message: Eastenders now looks "different" like it's shot on video or something else different? Anyone know anything about this (and able to add it to the article?) --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look any different to me but if that's true it needs verification from a reliable source. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cameron, did you buy a new TV? :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filming 

message: See Here - not much (if anything) is said about the title sequence is it?  Should it be?  This is a fairly useful reference about who designed it originally. Stephenb (Talk) 17:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The new sequence is here. Yes we should mention the title sequence as there have been changes to it over the years - and also the theme tune article needs updating as it's changed slightly. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New title sequence

message: Not really to do with this page, but where did those pages go? Were they deleted? I don't understand why? They were so detailed, with so much you can't put on the main page, those kinds of articles are what Wiki is for in my opinion. AJ21SW (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They were redirected to EastEnders because they were nothing but plot which goes against the guidelines about writing about fiction. They were also poorly maintained, with the 2009 section missing several key storylines. All the major storylines are included in character's articles. If you feel the articles should be recreated, I suggest it is done to the guidelines. The way they were, if someone had nominated them for deletion, we wouldn't have an argument to keep them unless they were rewritten. As redirects, we still have the history of the pages, but they're no longer updated. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storylines of EastEnders