Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders/Archive 3

message: The last talk page was long, so I archived it. Old discussions can be found here and here. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 14:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another new talk page! 

message: Why are they only ever put in the children's articles? I hate them, they look (with risk of sounding like Nikki from Big Brother) grotesque! I think we should just move them all to WikiQuote, especially the ones on Courtney Mitchell and Rebecca Miller (EastEnders). Anyone have any comments? Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 14:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I agree too. Put them all on WikiQuote and link to it in the articles. Even the Honey Edwards ones which I love so much! -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes in articles 

message: Anyone think this is true? If it is, we must wait for BBC confirmation! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 19:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC confirmation... nooooo! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 19:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope it's a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE exit storyline! Not a shitty little one! -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  :O OMG!! 

message: Getting back to this archived conversation, are we going to split this article? I still think it's a very good idea. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't. We should discuss this after Wikipedia 1.0 Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 18:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Storylines of EastEnders]] 

message: Can we get a list of episodes so that indivdual episodes can have own pages? --Quentin Smith 06:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely no way. It's totally unencyclopaedic. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe if there is a specific storyline that you think merits its own page then that could possibly be done instead. Most notable occurances have been added to the featured characters own articles though. Do you think any particular storyline should be covered in more depth? Gungadin 15:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episodes 

message: I got the book "EastEnders: Swings and Roundabouts" by Hugh Miller today. It tells the story of Albert Beale's death (in 1957), and the aftermath, and Pete and Pat's marriage, and also has a lot about Dr. Legg and his father... it all takes place throughout the 60s.
There is a lot of character information in it, which, due to limited internet access, I can't put on the relevant articles, so I thought I'd post it here so you can all do it!
OK, so it looks like Maureen Beale didn't actually exist. Instead, her name was Dora - she lived in a flat away from home, and didn't really like Lou. I haven't finished the book yet, but it looks like she's about to marry a loser called Arnold- and Pauline's mising the wedding because of the flu - and her boyfriend Arthur's with her - sound familiar?
Ronnie Beale did exist, and had a wife named Gail. As they existed in 1957 - 1964ish, Ronnie and Maureen/Dora couldn't have died in the war, so it's a mystery where they've gone!
There's also another Beale brother, Harry, who lives in Yorkshire and manages a hotel... he's the eldest, it goes Harry, Dora, Ronnie, Kenny, Pete and Pauline (and Maggie, the eldest, but she obviously isn't mentioned in the book!)
OK, now to the Legg family. Harold's dad is called Gregory. He dies during the book. There's also a recently-deceased Uncle Leon Legg. And who knew the Legg family were strict Jews? Not me...
Also, I don't think Dr. Legg's sister is called Hester. In the book his sister (who moves to Israel) is called Miriam...
Another couple of bits; Kenny's full name is Kenneth, and Angie Watts' maiden name is Shaw. And the landlords of the pub before Den and Ange were called Alfred and Polly Barrett.
And that's all so far- apart from it's a bloody good book, and I'm gona fnd the other books! And Reg Cox is a scumbag! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 20:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't treat these Hugh Miller books as canonical - we should stick to the information presented in the series (although mentioning that the "book by Hugh Miller says...") might be acceptable.  Either way, the TV series has never treated these books as anything like "real" within the series. Stephenb (Talk) 07:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know the year the book was written Trampikey? As I have some old episodes from 1985, where Lou goes on about having to share a room with 5 sisters (all of them fat). It seems EastEnders doesnt even try to be consistent with the information they put out. Gungadin 17:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am also not sure these books should be treated as canonical. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He (Hugh Miller) was an EE script writer at the time of writing the books (1986) -and it says in the front of the book "By arrangement with the British Broadcasting Corporation" - meaning they were given the go-ahead by the BBC- so I see no reason why they can't be treated as cononical, if it was a script writer's story that he didn't manage to fit into the show itself- and was approved by the BBC... Of course, if any information contradicts itself, the TV show must be seen as the correct information (like when the official site had different names for Eric Mitchell's parents than were mentioned in the show...) Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. So where did the names Maureen Beale and Hester originate from? -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I will echo a previous post when I say that references must be cited - and I think that ought to apply to any information cribbed from novels. Tie-in novels are rarely treated as canonical by TV production teams - they're just merchandise. Stephenb (Talk) 11:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I dont remember anything about Ronnie and Maureen Beale in the show, but it does mention them in Lou Beale's biography in EastEnders Who's Who. That was the first I'd heard about them though and it just says they both died.
Hester actually appeared in the show in March 1988. If you type Hester into the search bar here it will give you the exact dates she was in it. Anyway, she was Legg's sister, visiting from Israel. Her son David Samuels, was having a hard time in Israel. He was being shunned by the locals because he had treated a terrorist, who had blown up his best friend on a bus. He had also split from his finace, Ruth or Jane (I cant remember which). She thought it would do him good to come to England. Legg thought it was a great idea, and David came over the following month. Gungadin 16:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think only one sister, as only one was mentioned in your book, and she appeared on-screen after the book was published, so they probably just decided to use a different name. A trivia section could be included if Hester ever gets a character page, and we could possibly say she was referred to as Miriam in the novel etc.  Gungadin 14:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i dont know what has been decided about Lou's mystery children, but I think the answer may lie in the 1988 EastEnders special Civvy Street. The cast list gives credits to both Ronnie and Harry Beale . I didnt see it, but maybe her kids died in this special. Ronnie is definitely dead as he's listed in Lou's EE character profile as deceased . Also Lou had a sister in civvy st called Flo and the landlords of the Vic at the time were called  Ray and Lil. Oh and I found this , which says that Lou's maiden name is Medeeny, does your book mention this at all Trampikey? Gungadin 20:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read carefully before you respond; it has been agreed that these novels can be seen as canon, as they have the official BBC go-ahead. Which, again, I am willing to scan the page giving permission to prove it to you- like I did to show you that Hugh Miller did write for EastEnders. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has not been agreed as StephenB and I still disagree. Presenting some of this information as canonical makes for some messy and untidy character profiling in my opinion. Notfred 20:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: StephenB said he doesn't mind as long as the books are cited, which they are in Lou's article. You're the only one kicking up a fuss, and you're clearly now trying to make this a personal attack against me, which is not needed when trying to build an enyclopedia. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not trying to make this into a personal attack against you. I like the fact that you are clearly very passionate about EastEnders, this site, and this project. I don't believe the information from the books has been cited correctly, as it is currently unclear which information has come from the books and which has come from the television programme. Notfred 21:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I agree with Notfred - the information from the books must be much more clearly cited, as otherwise people may assume that the information came from the TV series, which is the primary reason for the article(s).  I have read most of the novels, incidentally, but when they were first issued, and I subsequently gave them all away to charity (partly because they contradicted later on-screen information, and partly because they weren't very good!).  BTW, it's "canon" - a cannon is something different :-) Stephenb (Talk) 08:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well put Stephen. By the way, in order to clear up any confusion regarding Doris Miller (mentioned above) - the references to her were made early in 1990 (after Lou herself had left the series) through the character Harry Osbourne. http://www.walford.net/cgi-bin/enders.pl?record=0425. Unless anyone else can remember any different - Flo and Doris are therefore the only two sisters of Lou's who have named within the television series.  Notfred 17:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of new information! 

message: What do you think of this?
Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 16:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it so much that I've added it to a bunch of articles :) -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: Hi, folks.  I noticed that your project banner (:Template:EastEnders project) is placed in the upper right-hand side of the talk page, much like the star for featured articles.  I'm not sure, but I think this might be a problematic precedent: for example, if an article falls under the scope of more than one WikiProject, and both have this style of banner, it could interfere with the talk page's formatting.  I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but I think it would be a good idea to change it to standard placement.  Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be changed back too, it was better before. WP:BIGBRO use the same format. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it how it is (but I'm bound to be biased) - I made it (or at least copied it from the Big Brother one!) - I don't mind if it gets changed back - I just think it looks stylish like that! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it back so ner :P~ -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that.  I admit that it has a certain flair on its own, but I was just worried about the precedent if other WikiProjects start copying the format because it looks cool, and pretty soon there's a pile-up in the upper right corner. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We can't use fair-use images in the template. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? It's used in the stub template? Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 22:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only because you put it there when the other fair-use image was removed. It probably shouldn't be there either. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project banner placement 

message: Should this section include episodes such as the ladies darts team in the Isle of Dogs, or Ian and Mel going to cornwall to see the eclipse, or the time Natalie and Barry went to visit Andrea and Terry and Irene won a holiday in the lakes? There was also the time when Matt Rose and the dimarco girl went on the run, and the Jacksons went on a holiday with Dan.
I was going to put them in, but i didn't incase they had already been rejected for some reason. What do you think? Gungadin 14:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 15:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[EastEnders off set episodes]] 

message: This article in The Sun say that Johnny Allen (Billy Murray) is set to make a return to EastEnders. Please treat this with a pinch of salt and remove it from any articles it appear sin until confirmation from the :BBC is recieved, it is :The Sun after all! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 08:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: God, I hope not - they were all for getting rid of gangsters.  Maybe this is just for Ruby's leaving? Stephenb (Talk) 10:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says he'll be behind bars anyway so if true, it'll only be a short comeback. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article says that an EastEnders insider has confirmed this... do we believe it? Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 15:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Official EastEnders confirmation Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 19:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnny to return... apparently! 

message: What standard colour should we use for the project page, infoboxes, etc? I think it should be #cccfff, but the character infobox uses #99cccc, which I think looks bad. I made an example of the character box using #cccfff:
EastEnders character	EastEnders character
                    	
                    	
                    	
                    	
                    	
                    	
                    	
                    	
                    	
                    	
                    	
What do you think? Also, I think the project page looks easier on the eye, as this example shows... does anyone think the blue if a good idea? Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 09:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The green is horrible. Just make all the templates blue. I never liked the green and I believe I once suggested changing the colour but nobody bothered to reply. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The infobox is blue, Petie beat me to it with the main WikiProject page! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 11:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that pastel looks much better. I agree: the green looks horrible and too bold. The JPStalk to me 21:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject colour

message: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can you update the new articles lists every time you create a new article? It's only by chance that I found Tony Hills and List of EastEnders spin-offs. The same goes for categories, images, templates, etc. Thanks. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!! -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New articles 

message: I have noticed that some of the EastEnders articles are being tagged as "in universe" (i.e the article depicts the character as real etc) -  like Joanne Francis. I was unaware of this, but apparently articles that are written in this way goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Most EE character articles use an in-universe perspective. Lou Beale is perhaps the only one that is not completely in-universe, but even that has a big proportion of in-universe perspective included. Does this mean that all of the character articles are now going to be tagged? I was going to start some new articles, but I dont know whether to bother now as an out-of-universe perspective on many of these characters is going to be difficult to write about, I just dont see how we can get the information on them that is required for this kind of persepctive. I was wondering what everyone on the project thinks we should do about this? Re-writing these things is going to be a nightmare. Gungadin 15:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've talked to Trampikey about this quite a lot. We agreed it's very difficult to write about characters in an out-of-universe prospective, and I believe most articles would be pretty much empty if we attempted to change them to out-of-universe. I hadn't noticed any being tagged until you mentioned it. It's a major problem of the project, and I don't know what to do about it. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's going to be hard. The only thing I can think of would be to compare the characters to archetypes, and assess how they change over time and how events change them, which would allow us to incorporate storylines. It would all be subjective interpretation though, as i'm not aware of anything official being released about the producers motives for inventing a character or chaging them in the way that they do. The Inside story book might give some info on the original characters and how they were concieved, who they were based on etc. But as for the rest, there is no way we can be sure. Some of the characters and storylines may be loosely based on real people/events, but there is nothing official to suggest this is the case, so it would all be speculation. I guess we can comment on the characters popularity, impact, longevity and viewing figures for their storylines.Gungadin 16:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's anything I can personally do to help with this, as all I do is watch the show! Don't forget, everything will have to be verifiable and not original research. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I start any research into this, I'll wait to see what Trampikey and the other members think should be done. I'm sure there are things that can be added to some of the big EE characters, but for the minor ones it will be extremely difficult and it will be very time consuming. Do you think it's ok to leave their storyline sections as they are and just add verifiable critical analysis at the top? beefing that part up as much as possible. or are they suggesting that the storyline section be completely taken out? It's difficult to know as the fictional characters they use as examples all differ greatly in style Gungadin 18:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to have any part in it - if we're going to have to ruin articles by removing good content, I'll just let whoever wants to do it get on with it- I think it's a shame, that's all Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 10:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why you think it will be ruining articles. It'll make them better because they'll be in line with the Manual of Style. Also I don't see why we can't keep the existing information at the bottom of the article in a "storylines" section. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the storyline section should still be allowed. All that this means is that we need to bulk up the paragraphs at the start of the article with more research and analysis. That has been something I am quite interested in doing anyway - through the Lou Beale page - so am more than willing to help. Notfred 22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be great if you could help with this Notfred. I have been meaning to do make a start, but I don't really know where to begin as everything we put in will have to be sourced and I don't wanna ruin the articles. I remember you saying you have the Inside Story book, which is where you got the Lou info from. Does that book have similar info on the other original characters? Gungadin 16:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I meant to say that. It has a similar amount of information on each of the original characters. I am more than willing to eventually edit that information into each article, in a similar style to how the information is presented on Lou's page. Obviously I'm not so sure how we would go about approaching the many hundreds of other characters that don't have this sort of information immediately to hand. Although there are bound to be stuff on the net if you look in the right places. Notfred 22:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have bought the book, and it seems really informative. I will start updating the other original characters in the same style as the Lou Beale one shortly. Gungadin 15:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Universe persepctive 

message: I have been watching some episodes of Eastenders from 1985. On 2nd July 1985, Pete talks about Lou's other children who she can be sent to live with. The names we are given are Keith, Paul and Norma.
Qoute: "Keith and Paul, they're in Romford. Norma's stuck in Eastbourne. She can't go and live with any of them because she won't move out of London".
On 1st August 1985, the Fowler family are celebrating Martin's birth and discussing her labour time 
Quote: Lou "That was quick, she don't take after me. Thirty six hours I was with my Norma, and 28 with my Pauline"
So we know that at this time in EE's history, Pete and Pauline's siblings were meant to be Keith, Paul and Norma. There is no mention of Kenny, Harry or Ronnie - even though Kenny did go onto feature within the serial, and in Civvy Street with his brothers. 
Notfred 21:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kenny Beale was in the show in 1988, not just in Civvy Street. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. That's why I said "Kenny did go onto feature within the serial".  :-) I think the character Kenny must have been invented a bit later on - perhaps when they brought in Wicksy or Pat - as this is when the paternity issue came up. Or also, it could just be that Kenny wasn't mentioned here as there wasn't really an option of sending their mum all the way to New Zealand (much as they'd enjoy the prospect!) Notfred 22:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, I misread. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also seen the first episode NotFred mentions, when they mention Norma et al (although with Pete's weird lisp I have to admit I found it difficult to make out the other's names, lol). In that episode, the one when they are discussing where to place Lou, they didn't actually say how the characters were related to Lou (If I recall correctly). Is that right Notfred? I agree that the most likely assumption is that they are her children though. Gungadin 16:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second eposide confirms Norma was her daughter and therefore Keith and Paul must be her sons. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that is definitely the conclusion we are meant to draw. You're right Gungadin than it is not explicitly stated that Keith and Paul are her sons (in that episode anyway), but in the context of the discussion, which of her children Lou should live with, it makes a lot of sense. (lol at 'Pete's weird lisp', he definitely has his own unique style of speaking!) Notfred 22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Info

message: List of birthdays in EastEnders. It seems like listcruft to me. A list of birthdays doesn't need to be here. I added a prod (which I'm sure will be removed...), so I will AFD it later probably. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 18:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I never really saw the point in that list to be honest... individual characters' birthdays are on their articles. I'm not interested in the list. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this EastEnders list really needed?

message: What's the point adding new tasks if no-one does them? Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 17:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tasks 

message: Number (there should be 23)	Character       	Section completed?
1                          	Ian Beale       	No
2                          	Lou Beale       	Yes
3                          	Pete Beale      	No
4                          	Kelvin Carpenter	No
5                          	Tony Carpenter  	No
6                          	Arthur Fowler   	No
7                          	Mark Fowler     	No
8                          	Michelle Fowler 	No
9                          	Pauline Fowler  	Yes
10                         	Kathy Hills     	No
11                         	Lofty Holloway  	No
12                         	Naima Jeffery   	No
13                         	Saeed Jeffery   	No
14                         	Dr. Harold Legg 	No
15                         	Andy O'Brien    	Yes
16                         	Ali Osman       	No
17                         	Sue Osman       	Yes
18                         	Sharon Rickman  	Yes
19                         	Ethel Skinner   	No
20                         	Mary Smith      	Yes
21                         	Den Watts       	No
22                         	Angie Watts     	No
23                         	Debbie Wilkins  	No
- thought it might be useful to those doing the sections! (I could've sworn Mary Smith was one of the 23... I suppose she did make her first appearance a bit after the others...) Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 18:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Mary Smith was one of the original 23. Apparently Nick Cotton was the 24th. He was invented after the others because in the first script viewings, everyone wanted to know who killed Reg Cox. So Nick Cotton was invented. Gungadin 19:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I've ammended the table to show that... :) Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 19:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character creation and development sections 

message: These sections are great but should be renamed, because 2DTV (for example) is the same medium as EastEnders — television. Suggestions for what to rename these sections to please. Considering that Sharon Rickman's does also include a different medium. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Trampikey doesn't like "Trivia", which is why I asked. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "In popular culture" it is then! -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In other media 

message: I was just wondering, is there a reason why this WikiProject's main page has a blue background?  J Ditalk 19:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone must have thought it was pretty. Personally I always thought a plain white background would be better. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Twas why I brought it up, I think a plain background would be better as well.  J Ditalk 19:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: K. What are you doing snooping around my Wikiproject anyway? :-P -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: cough  J Ditalk 20:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yours!? I was here first! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 22:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: cough, cough  jd || talk || 22:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply meant "my Wikiproject" as in "the Wikiproject I am a member of". J Di is my stalker tonight for some reason :-) -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The project page looks boring now... I think the blue made it stand out! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 22:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, well I'll put it back then, just thought it wasn't right for the page.  jd || talk || 22:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Damn, you noticed!  jd || talk || 22:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: At least it's not the yucky green that EETG made. I quite like the blue. --Quentin Smith 14:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EETG?  jd || talk || 14:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EETG refers to User:EastEnders the great. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject background colour 

message: Does Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders/articles have any purpose, other than doing what a category already does?  jd || talk || 21:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders/articles 

message: WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done. I helped with "Did you know"! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 23:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, good work guys Gungadin 00:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good! Some things though; I think we aught to have "Featured character" too, I think the features need nomination, and I think that it could do with some pictures. --Quentin Smith 11:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put a fair use image on the page and it was removed, so it looks like we can't use them, even if they relate to the text. I assumed a "featured picture" would be out of the question anyway, as we don't have any free images relating to EastEnders anyway. As for a "featured character", I like the idea but it will leave a big space somewhere, and I like the layout at the moment. Maybe we can fill the space with something else. P.S. Trampikey says he's going to update the DYK section every week and I'd like to look after the news section. If anyone wants to "adopt" another section then please do :) -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do featured biography and article if you want me to... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 14:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can if you want but someone else might want to do something too :) -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm not stopping them... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 14:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. If nobody else wants to do it, or if nobody minds, you can do it :) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do it regardless, there's no limit on who can contribute to what on Wikipedia! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 16:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and another thing, character articles can come under "Selected article" - so we don't need a "featured character" section... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 18:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my original thinking. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:EastEnders]] 

message: I think we should work on the leading paragraph of the main article, then get a peer review done... anyone agree? Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 12:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[EastEnders]] 

message: Please take a look here and see what you think! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 16:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take a look at [[Talk:List of characters from EastEnders#Layout|this]]