Talk:Jean Slater

message: I can't access this article so don't know if there's some chewy material on Jean or if it's just a fleeting mention:
*Harper, Stephen (2008). "Understanding mental distress in film and media: a new agenda?". The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health 128 (4): 170-174. doi:10.1177/1466424008092232.
Bradley0110 (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone added an interview as an external link but I think it would be good to incorporate this as a source as Gillian Wright is discussing Jean's personality. This was an interview originally on the EastEnders site (I remember seeing it first time around) but was removed in the revamp, so thankfully they've kept it and put it on their mental health pages. I might do it myself later if I find time. AnemoneProjectors 12:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

text: for when she comes back you need to add the updated link.--MayhemMario (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? –AnemoneProjectors– 17:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: Shouldn't this be 2006-2011, 2011- ? She doesn't leave until next year. Her exit is in all the soap mags which cover weeks 51/52.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.116.177 (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If she leaves in 2011, her duration is 2006- because she departed and returned in the same year, so we don't put "2006-11, 2011-" regardless of the fact she left. Digital Spy's page you refer to says "Late 2010/Early 2011". AnemoneProjectors 21:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Inside Soap say she's going on the 27/28th December. - JuneGloom  Schmooze  22:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Well I asked Daniel Kilkelly from Digital Spy and he says this is a one off, it'll be part of her last contract so that means she hasn't departed yet. AnemoneProjectors 19:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Duration

message: The introducer for 2005 in Kathleen Hutchison, and Jean was introduced in December 2005, where as Kathleen left in Feb. 2005 and was succeeded by John Yorke for a short period of time until Kate Harwood took control in Feb. 2005. So shouldn't the introducer for 2005 also be Kate?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.3.102 (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we need to list Kirkwood as an introducer, seeing as she only had a temporary break in the end?GunGagdinMoan 02:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. He axed her and then brought her back, so it's a slightly different scenario to the number of actresses going on maternity leave. –AnemoneProjectors– 08:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 Introducer. 

message: This is just a little niggle but does a single episode credited as Jean Walters justify that name being listed first? I think the "common name" (the one we use for the article's title and infobox) is probably better as the first listed name in the lead section, since the article shouldn't just reflect the latest episode but the character's entire history. So "Jean Slater (also Walters)" might put the emphasis in the right place. –AnemoneProjectors– 08:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree completely. A blatant example of wp:recentism that reads pretty awkwardly and would only be justified if Jean was a real person, which she is not. She's been known as Slater for 500+ episodes, and Walters for one.Eshlare (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think this kind of thing should probably apply to all fictional characters - if the article title is the "common name", then that should be the first name used in the lead, then other names the character has been credited by can be included after. I always think it looks a bit strange when an article called, for example, Sharon Watts (or Kathy Beale, or Michelle Connor, or Susan Mayer or...), starts off by calling her a different name. –AnemoneProjectors– 22:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I think we should. We do it for when other character marry, she's now full time with Walters and we still keep the page name the same. Grangehilllover (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  We should either change Jean to "Jean Walters (also Slater)", or change everyone to "common name" first, then alternatives in brackets. Easier to do the former, but my preference is actually for the latter. I doubt others would agree! (Just realised that's what I already said above) — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 19:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

text: By the way I'm surprised this didn't come up sooner because when I didn't want her being called Walters first, it was when she married and then left, meaning she only had the name for half an episode, but she's returned a few times since! — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 19:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess having common name would be best. Jean is better known as Jean Slater than Walters and I guess the same is with Stacey: she's always better known as Stacey Slater. Grangehilllover (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support changing all names to the WP:COMMONNAME. Soaper1234 - talk 20:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see a lot of reverts if we decided to change it. Would need a wider discussion somewhere else, I guess. I know soaps aren't the same as other dramas but for example, Susan Mayer uses the name she is credited with at the start of season 1 and then no others are listed, but that's to stop spoiling the plot (her late marriage) immediately (spoilers obviously are permitted but it was decided that immediate spoilers should be avoided) but that wouldn't be an issue in any of the EastEnders pages. I don't mind it staying as it is, but I wondered if there are any other examples from other shows. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 23:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd keep other names. I know, for example, Stacey is probably regarded as Stacey Slater, but then there are viewers who probably just know her as Stacey Fowler. Grangehilllover (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not suggesting we remove other names (Susan Mayer was probably a bad example but it's the only article I can think of where the most recent name isn't used), I'm suggesting we change the lead to "Stacey Slater (also Branning and Fowler)" - instead of having the current name first, make the name match the article's title. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 10:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that's the way I meant. Grangehilllover (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jean Walters (also Slater)" 

message: "had sank" is not a correct conjugation of "to sink". You can see this by consulting any list of conjugations, for example here or here. "Events that had happened" (as you put it) take the past perfect, and for "to sink" that's "had sunk". "Sank" is only used for the simple past tense, without "had". I would be reluctant to change the tense from simple past to past perfect, because it's a quote, and I can't check the source, which is no longer live. I'll see if I can find an archive. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conjugation of "to sink"