Talk:Phil Mitchell

message: I've taken out the reference to his real-life kids because it doesn't belong in here.  Will check it's in the article about the actor.  raining girl (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve McFadden's sons

message: Are they still married? Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 13:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, probably. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Surley Phil isn't still married to Kate if he just got engaged to Stella.  He must have divorced her and we just weren't told. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparhelda (talk • contribs) 19:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily, you can be separated and engaged at the same time. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes you're right, but this is a very old discussion! anemoneIprojectors 16:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True - pre-wedding day though.  :)  raining girl (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wife: ''[[Kate Mitchell]]'' 

message: This article needs to be in chronological order, and I'm not a fan of the "Women" section... the two major sections need to be merged, then split into smaller sections, and more information needs to be added pre-Who Shot Phil? Does anyone have any suggestions? I know Gungadin's working on an out of universe section for him, so maybe we can do a big overhaul of the article when she's finished... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a suggestion. Just do it. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, I came on to this talk page to ask whether you guys were happy with the layout for this page or not, but I see you've already had this discussion :) I agree by the way, the article misses out on a lot of Phil's early storylines. I'll have a go at re-ordering and padding it out after i've done the out of universe stuff if you like.Gungadin 01:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started rewriting it, adding the stuff from your sandbox, in my sandbox. Feel free to edit it there! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with editing pages in the userspace is that the page history is lost. It's not a problem if only one person edits it, but when two more people edit a page in the userspace, when it's moved to the mainspace, the edits of the other people are missing from the history. That's why I try not to edit your sandboxes. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 

message: This article's on hold expired and legitimate concerns went unadressed for all but three days of the hold. IvoShandor 10:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**arguably
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] 
*Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): couldn't, wasn't, didn't, couldn't, didn't, wasn't, wasn't, would've, wasn't, couldn't, couldn't, wasn't, didn'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 18:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated peer review

message: :Image:Mitchell bros scenr1.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Mitchell bros scenr1.JPG

message: :Image:Nadia phil.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 22:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nadia phil.jpg

message: Is this really correct?   As far as I know Peggy is the Landlady even though Phil is the owner, or at least part owner.  A similiar situation is in Coronation Street as Steve owns the Rovers but Liz is the landlady as Steve can't be the licensee due to having a criminal record, the same will apply to Phil. Douglasnicol (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I'm sure this is true.  Remember way back when Grant and Phil jointly owned the Vic, at that time Grant married Sharon, and she was the landlady as neither of them could due to criminal records, therefore the present Landlord/Landlady should be Peggy. Douglasnicol (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Landlord of the Queen Vic

message: Wiki does not seem to be up-to-minute on Phil. What's the latest please? In particular who is the woman Phil seems to be on the brink of having an affair with as I recognise the actress but can't place her name. Thanks  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 15:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest storyline

message: *'Who shot Phil?' bookies odds -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: It has been revealed that Phil will become addicted to crack cocaine. Should we change the alcoholism section to maybe "Addictions" or write about it separately? AnemoneProjectors 20:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. That's hilarious. 2. The development section seems to run chronologically, so adding it to the alcoholism subsection might confuse things a bit, but could both addictions be mentioned instead as a facet of his personality/characterisation? Frickative 21:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd rather not do that, cos this is a specific storyline that's been researched and everything. When I saw the headling "Drug addiction plot for 'Enders character" I didn't expect Phil at all! I was quite disappointed really. But I guess it might coincide with his temporary leave for panto..... AnemoneProjectors 21:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, in which case I'd probably just make it a separate subsection of development. I can't imagine being able to take the storyline seriously at all, but we'll see! Frickative 21:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's going to be related to the current storyline maybe we need to include all the current stuff as well, somehow, and put it all in one place? Dunno. AnemoneProjectors 22:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if I should mention his leave for pantomime but I reckon it must be related. It's only six weeks, but here is the story. AnemoneProjectors 13:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drug addiction 

message: Having this split into good and bad reception makes it impossible to put all reception for the drugs storyline in one place, and I don't think it should be split up. What do others think? Stuart Heritage from The Guardian has called it an "iconic TV moment". AnemoneProjectors 19:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (Unless we move it all into the drug addiction section of development...? There's this as well.) AnemoneProjectors 19:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception section 

message: Hi, I am appealing to anyone who know's the occupation dates of Phil Mitchell, as it stands at present his occ dates are as follows, * Barman (c. 1990s–2000s, 2005–10) *Mechanic (c. 1990s–2010) *Businessman (c. 1990s–2009) *Pub landlord (c. 1990s), well if somebody knows precisely when he was in these occupation's please feel free to correct them. --Dweeby123 (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phil's Occupation Date(s) 

message: This month in September 2010 Phil said he was 50 years old but he was born in January 1961 according to scripts over the years. The 1961 date is the correct date given for the character. I notice his date of birth has been amended to 19 January 1960. But when he said he was 50 he means he is nearly 50. He is still 49 and will be 50 in January 2011. 5 months time. I have amended his DOB back to 19 January 1961. 
(Benny1982 (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I normally spot these things being changed but I must have missed this one. You're right too, people do say they're a certain age when they mean they will be that age. AnemoneProjectors 19:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Date.  

message: This will need to be incorporated into development.  and  AnemoneProjectors 17:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heart attack/engagement 

message: Phil is the owner and licensee of the pub not Alfie and Kat, Yes so you may say on Alfie & Kat's EE profile pages it says Landlord and Landlady (respecitvely), Well infact it say's Alfie is the Landlord and Kat is a Barmaid, it doesn't say anywhere on her profile page that she is a landlady — But anyway that's not my point my point is on Phil's profile, the occupation field is: 
* Barman (1990–2003, 2005–10)
* Mechanic (since 1991)
* Pub landlord (it currently reads: "1991", but it should acctually say: 1991, since 2010)
* Businessman (since 1991)
So please can we agree to disagree??
--87.254.83.79 (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So you want it to say that Phil is the landlord, and not just the owner? Alfie and Kat are licensees as their names are over the door. –AnemoneProjectors– 16:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ALFIE is the LANDLORD, KAT is the LANDLADY and PHIL is the OWNER--MayhemMario (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to shout :-) –AnemoneProjectors– 20:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

text:  No need to douche it up.  There's no shouting in text.  Get over yourself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.39 (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not join a discussion, just to make personal attacks. It may be worth while you reading up on some of the policies we have on Wikipedia.Rain the 1 BAM 13:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: @MayhemMario, Chill your beans yessir!!!, (BTW if you don't know what "Yessir" means See here) —80.65.242.116 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep shouting in your edit summaries too. Oh Btw Mrs IP, we sure can. We disagree so you can agree with that.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 02:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: @Raintheone, Shut up —80.65.242.116 (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Twitter just might be merging with Wikipedia.RAIN*the*ONE BAM 21:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't understand what 87.254.83.79 wants to agree to disagree about. –AnemoneProjectors– 22:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 80.65.242.116 do not tell other editors to shut up. Please try to keep things civil. - JuneGloom  Talk 23:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I like bacon....00:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: @AnemoneProjectors, the point I am getting at is Phil is the landlord/owner The Vic right? Well therefore he should have on his occupation field that he is a landlord i.e. on his occ field it would say – Pub landlord (1991, since 2010) — It currently reads Pub landlord (1991), So the point I am getting at is, I apoligise for going on by the way it should say "since 2010" in the Pub landlord occupation thing if you get what I mean!...... And as for you Raintheone, that's cheeky Wikipedia is nothing like Twitter!! –217.28.7.133 (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Hey Anemone, Kat & Alfie are just just Phil's tennants and are not Landlord & Landlady, I know this is really, really confusing!! but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, and in responce to your 2nd reply No I've never ever heard of twitter-pedia lol --178.16.0.63 (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Their names are above the door though. –AnemoneProjectors– 14:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

text: All the soaps have always been sketchy on whether they own the place or are simply licensed tenants. I guess it's just easy for them to say, even if wholly untrue, that the person in charge is landlord/landlady. In Corrie the Rovers was owned by Newton and Ridley until the mid-eighties when Bet took over, but heaven help anyone who referred to Annie Walker as a 'barmaid'. I think it should probably say pub owner here. It makes it clear he is the landlord as he owns the place, but doesn't imply he has much to do with it, which he doesn't. Either title, owner or landlord, is correct though. Ooh, Fruity  @ Ooh, Chatty 14:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh god do you know @User:Ooh, Fruity, I'm so glad you know what I'm talking about as I don't honestly think AP, or anyone else did alas there's somebody out there who understands me lool --178.16.0.63 (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the "pub owner" thing has been absorbed into "businessman". I don't mind putting Phil as the landlord if it's correct but what are Kalfie? –AnemoneProjectors– 15:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've just seen that :) I'd leave them as landlords as well. It's sourced. It's not factually correct, but that's the beeb's issue. The finer details can always be put in prose. Ooh, Fruity  @ Ooh, Chatty 16:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What about in The Queen Victoria? –AnemoneProjectors– 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine as it is in my opinion. Ooh, Fruity  @ Ooh, Chatty 16:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ok that's cool –AnemoneProjectors– 17:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can We Agree to Disagree on (Pub landlord) occupation?? 

message: So it say's in the occupation field on his profile "Pub landlord" but was he actually a landlord (i.e. was his name above the door??) because if it wasn't then technically that does not make him the licensee – secondly if his name was above the door then why as I know the licensing law of the United Kingdom states that no person with a criminal record (which Phil has) can have be a licensee I thought I'd better ask before I remove it from the infobox. --EndersFan2012 (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He's the landlord.  As for the licensing law, I thought that too but you know what EastEnders research is like sometimes, or maybe we're meant to assume he found some way around that.  Either way he's the landlord.--5 albert square (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay thanks for that :) --EndersFan2012 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just my opinion though, not everybody will agree.  I'm sure Peggy gave the pub to him though when she left and I don't remember him giving it up.  Maybe he didn't tell them she'd left lol!--5 albert square (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daft question but... 

message: WITHOUT edit warring! The article did not state that Phil is her adoptive father, just her foster father. A user (86.169.235.148, who I blocked for edit warring, making personal attacks and going against consensus) has made the argument that "She is his ward temporarily but it is internal within the family." Therefore, should we list her? I've commented her out for now. I don't think I need to hear from that user as they have already made their opinion clear. –AnemoneProjectors– 19:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think so. Firstly, she is already listed as his granddaughter. Secondly he has not legally adopted her, adoption is permanant, him being her legal guardian is a temporary measure which according to the judge at Lola's hearing will continue to be reviewed. Lola hasn't permanently lost custody of her, and Phil could just as easily lose his status of guardian if social services decide in the future that its not in Lexis best interests. Bleaney (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK cool, though I'm not saying he adopted her but is her foster parent. Billy didn't adopt Jay but is listed as his foster father. Different circumstances? –AnemoneProjectors– 20:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I understand :-) –AnemoneProjectors– 20:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Lexi be listed as Phil's foster child in the infobox? 

message: Someone has added these names to the list of Phil's family as his cousins, but I've never heard of them. Are they unseen characters? If so, do they have any significance? I'm just wondering if they're the invention of a bored Wikipedia user! Smurfmeister (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They are unseen cousins who don't need to be mentioned in the infobox. –AnemoneProjectors– 08:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Harry and Charlie Mitchell

message: Where is this information sourced from? The 1,000th episode aired in April 1994... years after Phil's first appearance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.198.58 (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The number was added by , maybe they'll see this and answer, but unlikely... for now I'll remove the information. Thanks. –AnemoneProjectors– 15:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode number for first appearance

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Phil Mitchell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061229113716/http://www.redpepper.org.uk/cularch/xeastend.html to http://www.redpepper.org.uk/cularch/xeastend.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070712152850/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/eastenders/eastenders/episodes/classic_content/classic19991014.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders/eastenders/episodes/classic_content/classic19991014.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100722123515/http://www.rte.ie:80/ten/2010/0721/eastenders.html to http://www.rte.ie/ten/2010/0721/eastenders.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070222121637/http://www.thecustard.tv:80/linksandlists/tvpolls.html to http://www.thecustard.tv/linksandlists/tvpolls.html#soap
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090126061234/http://www.020magazine.com:80/webs/02005/showArticle.cfm?id=441 to http://www.020magazine.com/webs/02005/showArticle.cfm?id=441
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Phil has filed for divorce, Sharon has responded to his petition and agreed to the divorce. This does not make them divorced. Next they have to apply for a decree nisi, which will be approved or rejected by a court. Assuming it is approved, 6 weeks later Phil can apply for a decree absolute, or if he doesn't do this, Sharon can apply for one after another 3 months. Once they get a decree absolute, then and only then will they be divorced. However, isn't this just another reason to just removed in-universe dates from infoboxes???!!! Please? AnemoneProjectors 13:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As of yesterday's episode, Sharon and Phil are still married. From what Sharon said, it's clear they received a decree nisi, so now Phil has to wait 6 weeks to apply for a decree absolute - or Sharon has to wait 3 months on top of that 6 weeks, as I said above. They then have to wait for the decree absolute to arrive. But they can still change their minds and end up not divorced. <anemone>>projectors< 08:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In yesterday's episode, Sharon and Phil received letters stating that Phil can contact his solicitor to finalise the divorce. Sharon then told Shirley she and Phil are back together. So still married and it's looking more and more likely that they will remain married. And I reckon this storyline was done with Wikipedia in mind! anemoneprojectors 17:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phil and Sharon are still married 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Phil Mitchell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110719133324/http://archives.walford.net/2040.htm to http://archives.walford.net/2040.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Phil Mitchell. 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/20061229113716/http://www.redpepper.org.uk/cularch/xeastend.html to http://www.redpepper.org.uk/cularch/xeastend.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I suppose this extends beyond just Phil, but why are we using their marriage names in the infobox? Aren't we kind of contradicting ourselves a bit because when a character marries, such as Stacey Slater and Martin Fowler, we don't change Stacey's page to Stacey Fowler as we say Stacey Slater is the common name, so shouldn't this be applied in the infobox? And on the List of EastEnders characters page, we don't change the characters surname when it's changed, again, we go by the common name. Grangehilllover (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wives surnames 

message: When is Phil coming back. Is he coming back. Is there any reliable sources that say either. Aacfsftw (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Returning? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Phil Mitchell. 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/20061230211134/http://www-fms.stir.ac.uk/research/mvv/mvv_ch2.html to http://www-fms.stir.ac.uk/research/mvv/mvv_ch2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090731153212/http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C27574%2C25846677-23109%2C00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C27574%2C25846677-23109%2C00.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) 02:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should John Yorke be added as an introducer for 2017 just because he's been gone so long and the media are treating it like a big Return Aacfsftw (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only been a break, like when Jake Wood had a year off. And the show is still Sean O'Connor's work. Grangehilllover (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve McFadden never left the cast anyway, and Sean O'Connor will still be EP of the episode. — anemoneprojectors 11:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  2017 return 

message: There's a template box that states this section needs expanding, but it looks to me that it doesn't. Could I possibly remove this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILove70s (talk • contribs) 11:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mitchell car crash section 

message: Somebody protect this page. A user named user:Trueman31 has been making multiple accounts to sock and make many disruptive edits on this page with lies. His account is User:JimpixAP watch out for this user. WikiFlame50 (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection Request 

message: Phil is the longest serving character when you take other people's breaks into accord. However, the fact isn't reliably sourced so I've left it out of the article. – DarkGlow • 08:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest serving character