Talk:Pauline Fowler/Archive 1

message: Or should we refer to them as Poe? :) --Sweetie Petie 19:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pauline and Joe = Jauline? 

message: I didn't hear Pauline say she would be keeping her name which is why I moved the page - but some silly person did a revert instead of moving the page back so it's not my fault things got messed up! Thanks to whoever deleted the article so it could done properly. --Sweetie Petie 11:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem! They still have her listed as Pauline Macer at Walford Web... which is annoying! Trampikey 09:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry and thank you 

message: Is it right that Pauline's relatives are all in italics when others like Rebecca Miller are not? Which is right? — Gary Kirk // talk! 15:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Members of the WikiProject are currently in the process of changing the style and order of family sections for all EastEnders characters. Soon they will all be the same. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: Anyone else find it ludicrous? 82.69.28.55 16:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just glad shes gone the old battleaxe :} sailor cuteness-ready for love 01:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current storyline 

message: I find the section about Holland's cousin confusing.  Does this mean that he had cousins who were fraternal twins, named Pete and Pauline, and that his aunt's name was Lou? --Elonka 21:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it says that in the article. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Family question

message: This article seems to meet GA status. It is well referenced and complete. For higher status such as A or FA it should either be shortened or broken into more subsections. Cott12 Talk 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article has many excellent qualities, but that the plot summary is way too long. It appears to be well-referenced, but upon a closer look, many of those references are just to episode guides, rather than real-world impact as per WP:FICTION.  I recommend trimming it down to 500-1000 words. --Elonka 20:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have been adding a  tag to the article, but it keeps getting removed.  So, I would like to give fair warning that I do not believe that this article still meets Good Article status, specifically the Manual of Style on fiction.  As such, if the problems are not addressed, the Good Article status could be in danger. --Elonka 00:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, what Gungadin said - it may get done, it may not, you may want to do it yourself, although you don't seem to know the show, so I don't think it would be advisable... we have a lot to do, you know. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 00:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do appreciate that she's a longterm character with a devoted fanbase, and that there's additional attention on the article especially because of her recent retirement.  Some of the plot summary is indeed well-done and tied in to real-world context.  However, other sections are actually in danger of being copyright violations.  For example, "Pauline, stumbled over her packed bags next to the table, knocking over her favourite fruit bowl, which smashed into pieces.Pauline lay on the floor with smashed glass surrounding her, Sonia apologised and begged her to rethink her decision for Martin and Rebecca's sake," or "On the same night, Dot went to the Fowlers' house to find Rebecca's toy rabbit, which had been dropped there. Whilst there, Dot heard someone coming into the house, it was Pauline's husband Joe."  If at least those sections of the article that go into "blow by blow" detail could be edited down, it would be a big help. One of the reasons that this is an issue, is because we're having disputes on other articles about plot summaries, and when we try to tell people to edit it down, they point at this article and say, "Well, the Pauline Fowler article has an even longer summary, and that one's at GA status!  We're just following that example."  So, I'd like to see either that this article has GA status removed until it can be cleaned up, or that it get cleaned up first so that it doesn't lose the status at all. --Elonka 00:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you're right. The plot parts you quoted above were added mostly by users who arent in the project, and I agree they are very detailed in the death section especially. I had planned to shorten that and rid it of the unnecessary stuff, but haven't got around to doing it. What tends to happen is that we get an overly long summary on storylines that have just happened or have recently happened. People add to the articles after just seeing the episode. As such they remember every detail, which may seem important at the time, but several months later just seems unnecessary to anyone reading it. It can definitely be shortened in a lot of places. I will attempt to do something sometime this weekend, but I will discuss it with the project first.Gungadin 00:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be wonderful, thank you.  Also, would you be willing to consider the possibility of re-adding the  tag to at least the Death section?  Having the notice there would be useful for other projects, since it would notify new users that they shouldn't necessarily be looking at the Pauline Fowler article as an "example to emulate" right now.  Thanks, Elonka 01:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: To address the people "using this as an example", just quote WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I agree that the tag should be in the death section, but the rest is fine. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Status 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
*Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): don't, couldn't, couldn't, didn't, didn't, couldn't, wasn't, didn't.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Elonka 05:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've removed the "the" in "The early years" - but surely changing contractions will make the article longer, which you're opposed to, and please point out what needs copyediting. I'll look at the dates though. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, I found one unlinked date in a caption, which I linked. When the two remaining points above are addressed, do you suggest an FA nomination? If so, could you do it as an outside contibutor, not from WPEE, as I feel you would be taken more seriously? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, I'd be happy to handle the paperwork.  :)  Though I'd recommend a real Peer Review first (not just an automated one).  I'll go ahead and get that started. --Elonka 16:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Peer review submitted.  I recommend that all editors on this article set Wikipedia:Peer review/Pauline Fowler/archive2 in their watchlists.  For best results, please feel free to reply directly on that page, noting items that are fixed.  For an example of this process, you can see other ongoing peer reviews at Wikipedia:Peer review.  Good luck, Elonka 16:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that Elonka. One other thing - could you answer my contractions question above please? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 17:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All things being equal, I'd say to expand the contractions, unless they're in a direct quote, in which case they should be left as-is.  Or is there a particular one that you think should stay, for some other reason? --Elonka 21:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, I was just thinking about the length, I'll start expanding them now. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ugh, I'm too tired now, can;t find any of them! Maybe someone with AWB can attack this? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that hint directed at me? :) — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done the contractions. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated peer review

message: I've been thinking a lot about the question of whether or not the storyline here should be written in past- or present-tense.  I can honestly see valid reasons for both sides, and I keep flip-flopping back and forth.  Sometimes I think that the idea of making a soap article present tense is bizarre, especially the idea of saying, "Pauline Fowler is a character on EastEnders", because she's not anymore.  Then again, I look at the image captions in the article, which do use present-tense, and they look okay to me.  It would seem odd to change those to past tense (read them yourself, you'll see what I mean). Maybe because they're associated with an image, which brings the story "alive" again for that one moment. Also, even though soaps run in real-time, they do also run in repeats, via special retrospectives, or on cable channels (like right now, the cancelled soap opera Port Charles is in re-runs on the SOAPnet cable channel, and there are talks to open a channel that runs 24-hour repeats).  Now, having said that, I could still see going with past-tense -- I don't have a strong feeling either way, I'm just feeling very ambivalent at the moment.  What do other editors think? --Elonka 21:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking all that into consideration, I still feel past tense is more appropriate, due to there not being specific episodes we can cite for something happening, we can only use dates as the air date is generally the date something happened in the soap. Try reading the storylines sections in present tense, it just doesn't work for soap opera characters. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also dont care particularly, but I do resent that we might be forced to change it by those who just refuse to consider the points we bring up. All works of fiction are not the same. Therefore we should be allowed to choose which tense to use based on what is suitable for the subject. We should not be reprimanded for using past tense when it comes to GA and FA in my opinion. Also, it would sound a little stupid to say "Pauline's husband, Arthur, is made redundant in 1984 and has no prospect for steady employment", especially when the serial actually began after 1984. Gungadin 22:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, WP:TENSE is a guideline, not a policy.  One possible way we could handle it, would be to come up with wording at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas for our own style guidelines, like, "Fictional works are normally written in present tense; however in the case of soap opera characters, it may make more sense to use past-tense since the events occur in real-time.  Either method may be used in an article, as long as it is consistent throughout that article."  Then, when the situation comes up at GA/FA reviews, we can point people at the WP:SOAPS guideline.  We could also try and get wording added to WP:WAF that says, "In most cases, present tense should be used, but there may be exceptions for long-running serials such as soap operas.  See the guidelines at WP:SOAPS for more." --Elonka 07:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like that idea, we'd just have to get others to agree to it. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 09:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good idea too.Gungadin 14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could someone then please copyedit this article, to be consistent with one tense or the other.  If it is desired to argue  that past tense is doable, it would be good to show that the system can work throughout at least one article (including the image captions). I personally still think that the captions would look odd in past tense, but I'm open to seeing what it looks like. --Elonka 18:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm away at the moment, so have very little internet access, but you all know my opinion on this - past tense. (Sorry about short replies). -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think past tense actually does work in image captions, although it is a little awkward. I'd say it's acceptable. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They work fine, I like them. (Back Sunday btw, can't wait, Norfolk's shite.) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Present tense works fine, in fact now that I've changed it all, I think it looks better. If I missed any words, please correct me. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I didn't change the lead paragraph. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added some new guideline wording at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#The question of tense, which will hopefully satisfy everyone? Please comment on whether or not you like it, thanks. --Elonka 20:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Present is looking ok. I do prefer it in past tense but i'm not opposed to it being like this. One thing though, arent we now meant to say Pauline Fowler is a fictional character if we're using present? Gungadin 23:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, but as I said, I didn't touch the lead paragraph so other parts of it may require changes. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 08:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reverting this to past tense, as you did this in the middle of discussions when no cnsensus that satisfies everyone has been reached. It loosk awful in present tense. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but it does not look awful, and no consensus is needed because present tense is current policy. I've also noted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#The question of tense. Please see my arguments there and at the Manual of Style discussion. You're missing the point of the policy, which is to stylistically differentiate between fictional and real-life events. This is especially important in an article like this that contains both. Take a look at the starter article Alexis Colby, it's easier to assess the past/present use there. I know your used to the past tense uses in soap opera magazine summaries, etc, but those do not contain real-world analysis, etc. TAnthony 15:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trampikey, I was the one who changed the tenses, and it does not look awful, in fact I think it reads better. And if you want this to reach FA status then you'll have to get used to it being in present tense. Consensus was already reached when the manual of style was written. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Past v. present tense

message: As regards the "tense" issue, I'd very much like us to try and find a mutually-agreeable consensus that everyone is willing to accept.  Personally, I have to admit that I am not that conversant with the exact grammatical rules of English as regards writing fiction, so could someone perhaps point me to non-Wikipedia sources on the matter?  Also, I am curious as to how the issue is handled in books about Pauline Fowler.  Where the specific storylines are discussed, are they handled in past- or present-tense?  The lead of outside sources is a powerful argument on Wikipedia. --Elonka 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Always in past tense in every book. Fictional and factual. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, according to the quote in this article, where the character is discussed in EastEnders: The Inside Story, they're using present-tense...  Could you please provide some specific sources that do it the other way 'round?  Thanks, Elonka 18:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's from the plans for the show. I bought that book yesterday and there are a few pages where it outlines the characters created by Smith and Holland before they were even cast, so it was written at the time when all 23 original characters and the first episode were being planned. Books that talk about torylines in past tense include "20 Years of EastEnders" and "Who's Who in EastEnders" - details of both can be found here. It's also noteworthy that "The Inside Story" is a behind-the-scenes book, so doesn't really touch on the on-screen happenings, other than plans made bfore the series began. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (gathering data) The Episode guides appear to be in present tense. --Elonka 19:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 6 years of month by month accounts in one book called the EastEnders handbook. Each month is described in present tense.  Another book, Eastenders the first ten years, describes the storylines in past tense, but they are written more like commentary, with real world references, impact and analysis.Gungadin 20:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't the BBC Three documentaries describe events in present tense? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, but the official website uses present tense to describe the action, which is what we're doing in the storylines sections, the commentary with real world references etc is in the other sections, which use past tense. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Present tense still doesn't read well. {{WP:SOAPS]] now says that it is sometimes acceptable to write in past tense, so can we not change it back? Sentences like "and thus lived there her entire life. She was delivered by Dr. Harold Legg, and is the youngest daughter of Albert and Lou Beale." baffle me - they don't make sense. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No reply for four days, so I'm presuming noone objects. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 17:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object. Present tense reads perfectly well and WP:SOAPS is not a Wikipedia guideline or policy. I don't think Wikiprojects should be allowed to make their own rules that go against Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a matter of opinion on whether it reads well or not. I think it reads much better in past tense. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also object, the consensus above is for present tense, so it should be left as that.Gungadin 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It was an oversight, I didn't even notice you had asked a question until today. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didnt notice your post either. To be honest I thought this issue had been resolved due to the fact that the majority of people voted for present tense to be used in this article. Everyone else has said they can live with present tense.Gungadin 21:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary

message: Is it me or has the Pauline/Lou picture (from the first ever episode) disappeared? It's not showing up on my PC, is it OK for everyone else? Also, nice work Gungadin with the new stuff - I really like the picture of Pauline dead with Betty in it - I didn't realise we didn't have a picture of her dead, lol. I might get a cap from a future episode (I think it's next week or the week after) where Dot scatters Pauline's ashes - does anyone have a problem with that? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That grumpy looking picture of Pauline has gone... perhaps it was a mistake? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lou/Pauline picture is still showing up ok on my screen - I didn't change anything in the storyline section. Grumpy Pauline is still there, she has been moved to the criticism section to illustrate cardigans.Gungadin 23:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see. If it's the image with the caption "Pauline stands up to her mother in the first episode of the programme (February 1985)" then it's still on my screen too. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image problem?

message: In regards the question of whether this article should be past- or present-tense, we have discussed the issue extensively, we have requested comment from outside editors at WP:WAF and WP:SOAPS, and we have held a straw poll.  We do not have unanimity, but the question is, do we have a consensus?  I ask everyone to please read Wikipedia:Consensus, and then indicate your opinion below.  This is not your opinion on what should be done with the article, but your opinion on, "Do we have a consensus, and what is that consensus?"  Thanks, Elonka 20:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll: Do we have consensus?

message: Are we allowed to support the nomination? I did but none of you have, so am I allowed to do that? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find anything that says we're not allowed to, so might as well! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are supposed to say if you are a significant contributer Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Supporting and objecting (bullet 2).Gungadin 17:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh ok, I better say that then. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct, you're welcome to participate, but should identify yourself as a contributor or nominator.  For example, you could say "Support (as contributor)" or "Support.  I have to admit that I'm biased as one of the contributors, but I agree that this is a fantastic article... etc." --Elonka 18:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna vote too. Does anyone think that the pre serial appearances should have remained in their own section? because it includes OOU stuff, and is in past tense etc. It also makes the storylines section appear bigger than they were, which may get a negative reaction.Gungadin 18:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it looks better in an overall "storyline" section, but will go along with consensus on this one. --Elonka 18:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The past tense bits are only the bits that happened outside the time-frame of the books anyway. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA nom 

message: Just as a suggestion, might there be a way that we could get the best of both worlds?  Currently we have an excellent "background" section that has some storyline elements, and everyone seems to approve of that part.  Then we have a long "Storyline" section which most people like, but a few people are against.  Would it be possible, perhaps, to merge the two?  Keep all the information that's in the Storyline section, but merge it into the background section?  So we'd end up with basically the same amount of information, but would have gotten rid of some duplication, and would have everything in "Background" instead of "Storyline."  Would that work? --Elonka 19:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a simple heading reorganization; it shouldn't be an issue with the editors of this page. — Deckiller 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't sound too disruptive, and also if it was written out of universe like the "Background" section, it would be in past tense :) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it's too far into the FA process to make any drastic changes like this at last minute... leave it as it is and we'll look at changes if it failes the FA nom, eh? :) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be done, but wouldnt we need secondary references and commentary for everything if it is to follow the same format? This might be difficult to find. Everything would have to be rewritten in an OOU perspective and it will take a lot of work. It would also be out of sync with all the other EE articles. Were you intending to make the information chronological? If so then we would need to break up the sections in "character development", which might mean that it wont flow so well. I just re-read the storylines section, and it isnt that long at all. I dont see why some of the reviewers have such a problem with it. Seems to me like it's just their personal preference, rather than a fault in the article (which isnt really fair in my opinion). However, if everyone's willing to do the work then i'm not opposed to the proposed change.Gungadin 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Trampikey's last comment. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I still maintain that we should leave this until after the FA nom. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I intend to leave the rest, that bit i merged was just repetitive though. It was already mentioned in greater detail in the book quote in section 1.1. How long does FA noms take to close? It has been ages.Gungadin 16:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It depends how controversial they are.  Because of the lengthy storyline section on Pauline Fowler, and the amount of articulate (and recent) disagreement on the FA nom, it keeps getting skipped on the "promote/fail" cycles.  It would be nice if we could actually reach a consensus with the opposers rather than just agreeing to disagree.  Then again, there might be enough other articulate "support" comments for it to pass.  It's going to be a close decision, so Those Who Decide (meaning probably Raul654) are probably waiting until the conversation dies down. You can also look at the other FA candidates to see how they're "aging" in comparison. --Elonka 20:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Storyline