Talk:Pauline Fowler

message: Did my contribution of the line "If you want to know why I am the way I am..." line survive the butchering of this article? I might be being dumb but I can't see it and it was a good quote... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question 

message: Saw this on TFA/R, thought "no, British soaps and FAs don't mix", but actually, I am very impressed. Will (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On behalf of WikiProject EastEnders, thanks for taking the time to read the article and leave a comment, it's greatly appreciated. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awesome 

message: 




Pauline Fowler (née Beale) is one of the fictional characters from the BBC soap opera EastEnders, a long-running serial drama about working class London. The character is no longer part of current storylines, but was played by actress Wendy Richard between 1985 and 2006. Pauline was created by scriptwriter Tony Holland and producer Julia Smith as one of EastEnders' original characters. She made her debut in the soap's first episode on 19 February 1985, and remained on-screen for twenty-one years and ten months, making her the second longest-running original character, surpassed only by Ian Beale. 
Pauline Fowler's storylines focus on drudgery, money worries and family troubles. The matriarchal stalwart of the fictional London community of Albert Square, she is portrayed as a stoic, opinionated, battle-axe — a family-oriented woman who alienates her kin due to overbearing interference. Pauline's marriage to the downtrodden Arthur was central to the character for the first eleven years of the programme, culminating with his screen death in 1996. She was used for comedic purposes in scenes with her launderette colleague, Dot Branning, and scriptwriters included many feuds in her narrative, most notably with her daughter-in-law, Sonia, and Den Watts, a family-friend who got her daughter Michelle pregnant at just 16. A famous episode in 1986, which included Pauline discovering that Den was the father of Michelle's baby, drew over 30 million viewers, and was listed at #36 in The Times'  1998 list of "Top 100 cult moments in Film". (more…)

 -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excluding the image, as it's fair use. anemone│projectors 23:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I assume we're trying for February 19?  If so, please post here if you can get it to "stick" on the requests page (which I agree is a current nightmare that reminds me more of an eBay auction than an encyclopedic process).  If it's there though, I'll definitely weigh in to support.  :) --Elonka 23:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone's already requested that date. We got there first but it was removed because there were already five requests on the page. anemone│projectors 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec) We're going for March 11, as Fbruary 19 is taken. What are we going to do about an image? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no free images, so I guess nothing. anemone│projectors 23:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We could always sabotage the current 19 feb nomination, by opposing it (just kidding)Gungadin 23:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: i cant believe there's no free images of wendy Richard yet. She's often out and about shopping in London or walking her dogs. I saw her once in High Street Kensington I think, she was smoking a cigarette! Should have got her with my camera phone :) Gungadin 01:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was one, could we use it, even though it wouldn't be Pauline Fowler? anemone│projectors 10:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They'd use it for the main page, seeing as they cant put fair use on there, but it wouldn't be on the actual page. If they desperately need something, they can always use your sat image of the river thames, the one you took for the ee project icon.Gungadin 17:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, there are a lot of complaints at the FAR talkpage about the way that articles are being chosen.  This "first come, first served" system is relatively new, and obviously not very effective, but it's all we've got to deal with at the moment.  The central problem, is that FAs are being approved faster than one per day, so there is a steadily increasing backlog (over 1000 Featured articles, and growing) of articles which may never make it onto the mainpage at this rate.  Discussions are ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests on how to provide a better system, but no one's come up with a good way of dealing with the bottleneck yet.  If anyone else has ideas (or just wants to weigh in), please participate at the talkpage there.  However, please please please be on your best behavior.  The ultimate decider on this is one editor, Raul654 (and his assistant, SandyGeorgia).  So saying something to antagonize them, when they are already heavily overworked, is not going to be helpful, and if anything, will push our article even further back (or completely off) the queue. And yes, I know it's Wikipolitics, and yes, it's irritating, but all I can do is explain it, I can't fix it.  :/ --Elonka 22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to copy and paste to [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests]] 

message: Per 3RR, I can no longer revert. However, I am deeply unhappy about this amateur looking, trivial section. Her family are listed in a template at the article's bottom and in the infobox, so a third section is stupid anyway. But to have this makes the article look a lot less like an encyclopedia, I'm sure fans will be interested that her second cousin twice removed is Nellie Ellis, but its not encyclopedia at all. A list of misc family members is not suitable for Wikipedia. The arguments, from Trampikey, include "it provides extra info" - which is purely trivial. Remember this is an encyclopedia not a fansite. Another reason is "links ot toer characters" - the links are provided in the infobox and template. In addition, Pauline Fowler's article is about her, not a useful list of other EastEnders characters. The other reason is "per all other WPEE articles", this one is a FA and should set the example. All the actual guideline is at the Wikiproject and comes below the WP guidelines. Trampikey also states that the family section was there when it became a FA, well according to this it wasn't. It was added back by an IP here some weeks later. This was removed by Elonka later and then re-added by Trampikey many times when people have removed it. --UpDown (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we had a peer review before the article was nominated, and the family section was heavily criticised, which is why it was removed and  transferred to the infobox. Edit warring is not going to solve anything though. What about if we just add every single family field to Template:Infobox EastEnders character 2? That means no loss of any information or links.Gungadin 22:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I attempted it, but it doesnt really work. We would have to extend the length of the ibox to fit them in, or abbreviate, so perhaps G grandchildren, or GG grandchildren, 2nd cousin or something? what do you want to do? no matter, Trampikey fixed it.Gungadin 22:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Family section

message: There are problems with tense throughout the article due to the fact that both the character and the actress who played her are dead.  We need to be careful to to distinguish between actions in specific shows ("in the January 20, 2000 episode, Pauline does X") vs what she was or did or represented in the series as a whole, and what Richards said about her while she was alive.  Exploding Boy (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, in my opinion anything describing plot in an OOU fashion should be in past. Present is for pure plot description. Unfortunately, this mix of tenses was a result of the FA, done by a user to appease one of the reviewers.GunGagdinMoan 22:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tense issues

message: The article is currently in the queue to be Wikipedia's "Featured Article" later this month.  Currently there's no image that's lined up for the mainpage, because Wikipedia can only use one that's freely licensed, not anything that's "fair use".  Can anyone figure out an image we might use that could be freely licensed? --Elonka 04:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what we could use. We do have a few free EastEnders-related images, but not one of Wendy Richard, and I don't think anything else would be appropriate. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is available?  If it's iconic "EastEnders", it might still be helpful.  The current blurb looks like   this, which is a bit barren. Or maybe we could track down a free image of Richard, even if she wasn't specifically in character? --Elonka 18:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: File:EE tv1.png cant we use this one? GunGagdinMoan 18:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good idea, shall I go ahead and add it? --Elonka 18:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The WikiProject icon I created? Doesn't seem right to me. An image isn't absolutely necessary. A free picture of Wendy Richard would be better but there are none. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's better than nothing and will be recognisible as the EE credits to most UK readers at least. I agree, a free image of Wendy would be better, but failing that, I think the logo will do. I think an image for the front page will make it stand out. Speaking for myself, I dont tend to notice chunks of writing on the main page, it's the images that make me check a feautured page.GunGagdinMoan 23:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm in agreement that something is better than nothing...  But I'll leave it to the EE WikiProject folks to decide. --Elonka 23:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we cropped the NASA image and had it without the television? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I hope so. It's just the TV part of the image that puts me off. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless anyone has a better suggestion from the gallery. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we crop the EE sign from this photo :File:EastEnders set 3.jpg and use that? Or does that still count as a fair use image, seeing as it's a photo of a copyrighted image? Equally, this one of the Queen Vic may be good :File:Queen Victoria, EastEnders.jpg but not necessarily relevant to Pauline.GunGagdinMoan 14:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that might be a derivative image, meaning it's copyrighted and so even the original could be put up for deletion. I don't think the Queen Vic picture would be right for an article about Pauline. I wonder if any image experts could create a picure of the river that looks like the opening titles... AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a couple days to go...  Any progress on image? --Elonka 15:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, no. I don't think it would make sense to use an image of the Thames. No free images of Wendy Richard have emerged in the last couple of weeks. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mainpage image

message: I know I must add "fair use" rationale to this article. However, I could not figure out where to insert this image. --George Ho (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why bother adding it at all? The article already has 6 non-free images, we don't need any more. If you feel it's a better image for the infobox, then we have people who could sort out a perfectly good rationale for you - Frickative, GSorby and others do this kind of thing all the time. –anemoneprojectors– 14:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this could be used as the characters picture in the infobox, if you get the rational sorted out, that is. MayhemMario 17:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made it the infobox picture along with a suitable caption. GSorby – Ping! 17:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've often thought that this article has too many non-free images in use. I think you should talk about which are really needed.Rain the 1 18:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The prison image maybe? Not a great image, definetly keep her death one, :) MayhemMario 18:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how any of them help other than an old appearance - Pauline dead in snow could be replaceable by text, so could Pauline getting married to Joe and so on.Rain the 1 18:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I've reverted the change to your image name. The image that was being used before contains all of the previous revisions uploaded and they can easily be restored if need be. Plus the licensing and rationale were incorrect. We use this format for soap article image pages. Thanks, GSorby – Ping! 22:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't understand; my licensing and rationale were incorrect? How? I did my best to present the difference between real and fictional person, but... maybe I must ask WP:Media copyright questions if you disagree with my edits then. —George Ho (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think you could argue for the inclusion of Pauline hitting Arthur with a frying pan image being included of all the images, as there is critical commentary for it. I think we could possibly use an early image of Pauline in the launderette to potray her in the 80s, because it also depicts her working in the launderette, and there is commentary for that. This image would work, instead of the head shot we have, and it's also better quality  GunGagdinMoan 02:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replace a description of :File:Pauline Fowler.jpg with my own description from another file. Any objections, please don't hesistate to speak. I will upload the 1985 image of Pauline to my own file page then. --George Ho (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding [[:File:Wendy Richard Pauline Fowler BBC 2006.jpg]] 

message: I have uploaded this file, but I have not added this image to this article yet. Can anyone help me add a rationale before I add this file to a section of her marriage with Arthur? --George Ho (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure this file qualifies WP:NFCC#8? Because I don't. GSorby – Ping! 01:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I must be honest here: well, I tried to present the significance of fictional characters. Nevertheless, I inserted both real and fictional people in the description, and I don't treat my files as if they are merely images of fictional characters, as :File:Pauline Fowler.jpg currently is, no offense. :File:Wendy Richard Pauline Fowler BBC 2006.jpg acknowledges the real and fictional, but it is considered incorrect. "Contextual significance": How is this file insignificant? I was trying to present a general idea of Pauline Fowler and Arthur Fowler. Sometimes, I still don't know what else to do if it violates NFCC#8. I'm sure it doesn't, right? --George Ho (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Only essential images will pass fair use rules, and as much as I would like a Pauline and Arthur picture, we cant really justify the inclusion of this one George Ho.GunGagdinMoan 02:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't essential, is it? So what qualifies as essential? --George Ho (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Arguably, no image is essential for any article on wikipedia, and some users on here are trying to enforce that by getting rid of all copyrighted images. Luckily, this hasnt happened yet. But we have to be careful with the amount we include. Each copyrighted image that's included needs strong justification. We can argue that without an image depicting Pauline, users' understanding of the topic would be hindered. And, as she appeared for 22 years and her appearance altered somewhat, we can likely justify the image of her from 1985. Any other image, including decoration of Pauline and Arthur as a couple would be vetoed almost instantly. Naysayers would say, 'why is that essential for understanding of the article?". Unless there is critical commentary of a specific copyrighted image or scene that cannot be conveyed adequately with words alone? But I dont think this image of Pauline and Arthur qualifies, sadly.GunGagdinMoan 02:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If this image doesn't qualify as fair use for this article, how about a photo still of Arthur Fowler alone? Would that be essential? --George Ho (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

text: If you want an idea of how we have attempted to illusrate an article using fair use (copyrighted images) and free use images (non copyrighted images) take a look at Ken Barlow.GunGagdinMoan 03:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Wendy Richard Bill Treacher Pauline Fowler Arthur Fowler BBC.jpg]] 

message: I have acquired a photo of her holding MBE Award, but I wonder if you have approval to have it added in the "Reception" section of this article. --George Ho (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have enough non-free images in this article. –anemoneprojectors– 14:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding photo of Wendy Richard and her MBE Award from 2000 

message: I wonder if this couple meets WP:GNG and would guarantee their own article. I tried to find sources that determine their own notability, independence from EastEnders, Pauline Fowler herself, and Arthur Fowler himself, in Google. Haven't tried Free Library yet. --George Ho (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point as they both have their own articles. If they were not individually notable enough then it would be a good idea (see Ferreira family, Bruno and Luisa di Marco) but they are, so it's pointless duplication. –anemoneprojectors– 13:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What about their own romance together, like Sam and Diane? Sure, Sam Malone and Diane Chambers exist, but their own relationship is notable per WP:GNG. There are Erica Kane and Dimitri Marick and Erica Kane. --George Ho (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What could we say in an article about their relationship that we couldn't say in their own articles? We already have the "Marriage to Arthur" section here. I can't help but feel this would be The Secret Mitchell all over again. A duplicate of an existing article. –anemoneprojectors– 13:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What existing article? Anyway, there must be a real-world reception and writing development that could warrant a separate article. Otherwise, good point without reception and development. --George Ho (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Secret Mitchell is basically a duplicate of Danielle Jones (EastEnders) only with less info. It was created by a non-WP:EE member and hasn't really been cleaned up by us. An article on Pauline and Arthur would surely be a duplicate of both Pauline Fowler and Arthur Fowler. –anemoneprojectors– 14:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading WP:Abundance and redundancy, an essay about duplicating content into one article for easier reading influnced by WP:article size. Though not a policy or guideline, it is helpful for people who do not need to read Pauline Fowler or Arthur Fowler for just their relationship together. An article that could duplicate content about relationship could fit my common sense. If that wouldn't work, what about "List of couples of EastEnders"? --George Ho (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: George Ho, your suggestions are getting a bit out of proportion. WikiProject EastEnders is a encyclopedia, not a fansite. GSorby – Ping 15:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bad idea if I ever heard one. Another article on them - It would be a fork at best. No thank you. If anyone wants to read about their relationship, they are more than welcome to visit the appropriate section in Pauline's article.Rain the 1 16:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Okay... How is "Arthur and Pauline Fowler" less of an encyclopedia material and more of a fansite-based? If that's a bad idea, why besides being a potential duplicate of one article, less encyclopedic, and more fanatic? Would creating a disambiguation page help? --George Ho (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm in agreement that I'm not seeing a reason for a separate article. Having articles on the individual characters is sufficient. If it's necessary to have a separate "Arthur and Pauline" section, and there were sufficient sources to justify it, maybe it could be added to one of the existing articles? I mean, what needs to be covered, that isn't already being covered? --Elonka 23:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  If neither an article nor a disambiguation, a redirect then to either Arthur Fowler or Pauline Fowler#Marriage to Arthur? Would that help? --George Ho (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Errr, no! As if anyone is ever seriously going to tyoe into wikipedia "Arthur and Pauline Fowler". They will type either Arthur Fowler, or Pauline Folwer and get either article. You are talking about creating a totally pointless redirect. No to redirect. No to separate article. No to disambiguation. And No to any other option you come up with on this topic after this post.GunGagdinMoan 00:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gungadin, please. Deep calming breaths. :) George, sure, I think a redirect would be fine, and a good compromise. Redirects are cheap, and don't harm anything. I'd say pointing it to the marriage section would make sense. --Elonka 00:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the redirect was fine. I have now tagged it as part of WP:EE. –anemoneprojectors– 14:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirects are cheap? They must be because we now have Arthur Fowler and Pauline Fowler, Arthur and Pauline Fowler, Pauline and Arthur Fowler, Pauline Beale and Arthur Fowler and Pauline Fowler and Arthur Fowler.Rain the 1 11:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We also have Arthur and Pauline, which I'm especially sceptical about because the Fowlers are not the only couple with these names, not even necessarily the most common. Arthur Frommer and his wife seem at least as likely. The other redirects, while pretty useless in my opinion, at least do no harm except cost a little disk space. Huon (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit pointless to create all of those redirects if you ask me. However, I've taken a few minutes of the precious time that I do get to come online these days to tag them all. –anemoneprojectors– 15:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Redirects harm nothing. If someone wants to create redirects from every possible misspelling of a name, let them. It's not hurting the encyclopedia in anyway. Indeed, if you look around some areas with foreign language names, especially in Arabic or Armenian or something, you can find many variants of spelling, punctuation, and formatting in their list of redirects. It's all good. --Elonka 16:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

text: The way that would be handled, is if there's something else that "Arthur and Pauline" should direct to, then it can easily be turned into a disambiguation page: "Arthur and Pauline may refer to <list of links>." But if no one's complaining, then it's not an issue, and it's trivial to fix. --Elonka 17:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "Arthur and Pauline Fowler" has their own article? 

message: It is absolutely ludicrous not to include Lucy, Peter and Bobby. Pauline was an important part of the formative years - she was effectively the closest thing they had to a grandmother when Kathy was in South Africa. There was a strong notable connection. If you want to destroy the link between the two characters, then remove the 'Relatives' section altogether. I would include David Wicks seeing as he spent sometime on the Square whilst Pauline was around, in fact the whole storyline about who ran the fruit-and-veg stall was about an internal rivalry between the Fowlers and the Beales.--86.135.53.139 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, nope and nope. Some editors want to add everyone and their dog on here. What major storylines did Pauline share with any of these characters? Bleaney (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: He makes a good point. Pauline was around an awful fault when Peter, Lucy and Bobby were younger. She always babysat, Christmas at her house, the storyline over Pete Beale's death, Kathy's death she looked after them. Certain editors should realise that.--195.171.221.67 (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But what major storylines were they both involved in with Pauline? None. Just coz she babysat them off screen does not make them a notable link. Bleaney (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but she babysat them ON-screen, she looked after them and on occasion took them to school. She was involved in the storylines surrounding their birth. They always spent Christmas, family dinners and birthdays with their 'Auntie Pauline'. That is a notable link, please stick with the facts.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: On screen or off, it's still only babysitting. Spending time with someone is not a notable connection in relation to this work of fiction. –anemoneprojectors– 12:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Correct, babysitting somebody off screen is not a notable connection. Even on screen it isn't. –anemoneprojectors– 22:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair there was the Kathy's death storyline, the Bobby Beale storyline, the Peter Beale storyline and when Cindy kidnapped the Beale boys. Pauline is close family, she was always around.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's still only babysitting, right? And doesn't explain your revert that added back the characters Betty, Flo, Mark Jr, David, Elizabeth, Bobby and Nellie. Please discuss BEFORE adding characters to ANY infobox in ANY article. Otherwise you may be blocked, or the pages may be fully protected and only administrators will be able to edit them. –anemoneprojectors– 16:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not only babysitting. It is Christmas, staying with her when Ian was away,spending family parties with her, dinners - they even called her 'Auntie Pauline'. That is a notable connection. Betty was the namesake of Pauline's dog and came to the funeral. If Clive could be mentioned on Phil's infobox, then Betty should be on Pauline's. Nellie, not to mention her is ridiculous - they lived together for YEARS. Elizabeth came to stay in Walford, with the entire Beale family. David Wicks was brought in over the storyline over Pete's death and was sort of disowned by the Beales - including her - because of what he did to Ian. Bobby is included with the Beale siblings. Flo is the same principle with Betty, there for Lou's funeral and Civvy Street. Personally, I believe that Mark Jr should be included but I'm not fussed. But there is no method to your madness.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, spending time with someone isn't a notable connection. Calling someone "Auntie Pauline" doesn't mean they should be included in the infobox. Betty was a one-off character and isn't even notable, so there can't be a notable connection on any level. If any of these characters had a notable connection with Pauline, there would be some mention of those characters in the storyline section. Funny how you've gone back to personal attacks again. –anemoneprojectors– 12:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Elizabeth isn't significant to Pauline - if she was she'd be mentioned in the storylines. Same for David. I would say same for Nellie too but I do feel there was possibly a more significant relationship there. What kind of advice was given in relation to David? Who gave advice to whom? Simply being a niece or nephew isn't a reason for someone to be included. –anemoneprojectors– 09:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, she is. She was there in 1988. I will fight tooth and nail for Lucy, Peter and Bobby to be on her section for the reasons that I set out. I do not think you have been watching the show for very long. Firstly, do recognise that some characters have been around for years therefore there are plenty of relatives who have come on and off screen who they have relationships with but they may not have anymore for plenty of reasons. Now, you know I am right about the Beale kids but on David - if you actually remembered the storyline surrounding the aftermath of Pete Beale's death where Pauline and Arthur became heads of the Beale and the Fowlers, then you would not been trying to spread such uninformative nonsense. There was a split in the family between the Beales and the Fowlers about who should get the stall. Watch old episodes and listen to some advice.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are edit warring again AngieWattsFan...Bleaney (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relatives 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Pauline Fowler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130128231335/http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2006/07/a-raven-leaves-the-tower-walford-style/ to http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2006/07/a-raven-leaves-the-tower-walford-style/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070419054241/http://pages.prodigy.net/glc/wrhp/html/wr_rt9012.htm to http://pages.prodigy.net/glc/wrhp/html/wr_rt9012.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Pauline Fowler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070822154826/http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/primetime/british_soap_awards to http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/primetime/british_soap_awards
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209002408/http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline%3Dwhat-a-kym-back-%26method%3Dfull%26objectid%3D19206609%26siteid%3D93463-name_page.html to http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline%3Dwhat-a-kym-back-%26method%3Dfull%26objectid%3D19206609%26siteid%3D93463-name_page.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pauline Fowler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929091846/http://ww2.aegis.org/news/bbc/2005/BB050401.html to http://ww2.aegis.org/news/bbc/2005/BB050401.html
*Added  tag to http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/123/123791_hilda_ogden_voted_the_best.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pauline Fowler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070112032600/http://www.lse.co.uk/TVNews.asp?Code=XV36477P&headline=sonia_issued_warrant_for_paulines_murder to http://www.lse.co.uk/TVNews.asp?Code=XV36477P&headline=sonia_issued_warrant_for_paulines_murder
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion