Talk:Janet Mitchell (EastEnders)

message: *'I finally realised I had two sons' Gungadin 23:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: Should this page be merged to a list? GunGagdinMoan 17:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support a merge, and would suggest putting the reception in with the creation, as it's only to do with the birth anyway. We'd lose the images though. AnemoneProjectors 00:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Although that source above hasn't been put in yet... does that add much? AnemoneProjectors 00:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's definitely good material in that source, but I think it has more purpose in Honey and Billy's page. It's like the stuff that happened to Bianca's baby with the SPina Biffida or Hassan Osman's Cot death; the issues are notable but the child characters arent because apart from having Spina Bif or Down's etc, they dont have their own storylines/dialogue and are just plot devices in the parents' stories. Well, that's my opinion anyway.GunGagdinMoan 01:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree. AnemoneProjectors 01:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: Is it right that the actor portraying this character is just known as "Grace" with no surname? If not, it needs correcting. If so, I'd be interested to if the BBC has ever given a reason for this, and possibly even add that to the article. It's out of line with other babies that have been credited in the show. Dybeck (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The child isn't just known as Grace, but her last name is unknown to the general public. A news article about the child gave her name, but only her first name. Babies are never credited in the show, we find out who plays them through other means. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the clarification. Dybeck (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wanted to update this - Grace's last name was recently revealed by the BBC, but was later removed from the website, and it was also removed from Wikipedia per an OTRS request, most likely from Grace's family. Therefore her name will probably never be used on Wikipedia. –AnemoneProjectors– 14:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actor name 

message: Just wondered if it would be possible to get a more up to date picture for Janet. Maybe she's been too far away from the camera recently, I don't know. –AnemoneProjectors– 14:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on it. GeorgePing! 19:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Somebody keeps editing the page to say that Janet's last appearance was on 17 July 2012 and that she is a past character, but there has been no evidence stating she has left! Anemone so kindly reverted back to the previous revision, but it was then reedited by the same user to state the same thing and a message was included to say that if Anemone reverted the edit again, the user would kill him! Surely this must be against rules?!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.153.116 (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick question; Is this two users using the same IP or just one? Whatever the answer is, please don't threaten users, you may find yourself blocked. - JuneGloom  Talk 20:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it was indeed 94.2.153.116 who made the threat, and then posted here about it, and then replied to themselves as if they are a third person. How bizarre. –AnemoneProjectors– 16:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

text: But both messages came from the same IP address (94.2.153.116), i.e. the same person. Now 94.2.117.205 has admitted to being the same person (hence the reply here), I suspect this is the same person as User:Tinamckintyre23 looking at editing patterns. –AnemoneProjectors– 15:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Just because someone hasn't logged in doesn't mean they're not editing while logged out. Maybe you're not the same person but your first edit was to User:Tinamckintyre23/sandbox (though Tinamckintyre23 reverted it) and you're editing in some of the same places as Tinamckintyre23. Anyway, she(?) has proven herself to be a menace to Wikipedia, and you still replied to yourself here, answering your own question. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Like claiming David Scarboro never died and Mark Fowler was never recast to Todd Carty? Vandalism. Like claiming Abi Branning changed her name to Abi Cross? Vandalism. Like claiming Pauline Fowler is better known as Pauline Macer when she clearly never took her second husband's name? Vandalism. –AnemoneProjectors– 14:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

text: If you are not 94.2.117.205 then I apologise but I'm still very suspicious (you edit the same pages all the time). But the Abi and Pauline stuff was clearly deliberate vandalism. You even invented Google statistics to try to back up your false claims. –AnemoneProjectors– 09:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Pretty much the same results I got. Tina either did it wrong or made up her numbers. –AnemoneProjectors– 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

text: And of those 9 results, 7 mention people called Abi Cross that aren't related to EastEnders. Of the other two, one doesn't include "Abi" or "Cross", and the other which is the only result actually about EastEnders, doesn't mention "Abi Cross" but says "Abi and Alexa cross paths". So it's really zero results. –AnemoneProjectors– 14:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Well next time you decide to use your botched Google results to move a page, discuss it first to gain consensus, and use COMMON SENSE! Which you clearly didn't do, since Pauline was never Macer and Abi was never Cross. –AnemoneProjectors– 14:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody keeps editing to say that Janet is a past character! 

message: Following the one year rule, she should now be counted as a past character as it's a year tomorrow since she last appeared, plus she's not credited in any upcoming episodes. Discuss? Tinamckintyre23 (Come and talk!) 21:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to wait until William's last appearance to be a year before we get rid of them both, as Janet and William are kind of a 'special' case, but William's 1 year last appearance is coming up later this month any way. Bleaney (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bleaney (especially as Janet was due to appear in the live section of the 23 July 2012 episode), though I think it's unlikely either will appear. They may not be credited because they're children, so we should wait for the actual episode to be broadcast next Tuesday. If changing to past characters, whoever does the updates needs to finish the job though, updating both characters and both present and past lists, and the character navigation template. –AnemoneProjectors– 12:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, bot Janet & William have been removed. I think I did all the right stuff, I didnt add William to the past section of the character navigation template as I think thats only for characters with their own article?? Any way its done. Bleaney (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Following one year rule, is she a past character? 

message: Should this article be added into the list? Nothing seems to be happening here. If it was any other article it would have been put into a list years ago.Rain the 1 23:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are much stonger cases to merge other characters... Paul Priestly, Marge Green, Julie Cooper (EastEnders), Trevor Short and Laurie Bates are never going to be improved, and all essentially have the same OOU sources. I got plenty of other examples. At least with Janet, her dad is still in the show, she does (in theory) live not far from him and so more screen time is much more plausible than my other examples. Ive always felt that for EastEnders, Janet is one of those characters that they can bring back as she grows up, and because of her downs syndrome its likely she will make a significant impact on any return.- Bleaney (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm kind of inclined to agree with Bleaney here, but then again, WP:CRYSTAL. But I do reckon this character meets WP:GNG. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is the storyline that meets GNG rather than the character. It could sound harsh, but what else has she done? The storyline did focus greatly the elders, as they were the only ones that could react. Babies are always plot devices for the adult characters until they can portray their own. All the information would be suited in a list - should she return once again, more so when she is able to portray this issue lead storyline, then I think it is better served in a list. Although the article is probably missing parts. Hmm. As for the examples Bleaney suggested I would better spend my time moaning for merges - As for the EastEnders link, not sure what they have to do with a discussion to merge Janet Mitchell. But as you mentioned them, why not attempt to improve or merge them? Then they will not be used to detract from future discussions on other EastEnders related articles. :pRain the 1 12:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really the point I was making, I was using it as a comparison... perhaps you should take your own advice and try to improve the Janet Mitchell article... I dare say you'd have a better chance with her than me trying to find stuff out about minor characters from 1989 ;) - Bleaney (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm changing my mind and think Janet could be merged. All the details are also covered in Honey Mitchell, including the reception. It's not a long article so it would be a good candidate to merge to a list. I think Trish Barnes is a good comparison - Trish is well suited to a list depsite a hefty reception section, and Janet's about the same. Though I know this is another WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument! ;-) –AnemoneProjectors– 16:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no point in me trying to expand the article if I do not believe it should exist. Earlier I said that I believe the storyline is notable - why not create a storyline article instead. Janet could sit in the list with a link, and all the rest of the information relating to the actual storyline and the established character's it did effect - Billy, Honey etc - taken from the interviews with the actors, producers, storyliners and reception on how characters handled the issue etc... I reckon it would make a booming article. There is no character development section to be built upon here. I think sometimes we just get caught up in character articles. AP has worked on some nice storyline articles. As for 1989 characters, I happen to have a selection of magazines from the 80's containing EastEnders articles. So neeeerh. ;)Rain the 1 16:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good for you well maybe use those magazines for the articles I mentioned then... Bleaney (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I might do sometime but I am too wrapped up with projects few editors help with right now. It was a bonus that they were in there tbh, as I only purchased them for their Neighbours and H&A content. I'll give them to anyone who will use them. I used to send Gungadin some to help with old articles.Rain the 1 17:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Maybe we could do a storyline article. I'm not sure what's out there, as I know most of the reception has been included already. I'm still struggling to get through my watchlist on a day-to-day basis and when I have the time and motivation I want to work on the articles I've already started working on, so this wouldn't be my priority, if I were to help out. But I think for now we should merge. So can we stop talking about the 1980s? If you want to discuss those characters, do it on those talk pages :-) –AnemoneProjectors– 10:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we will talk about what we like AP, thats generally what a talk page is for, you are not the EE page police. Bleaney (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A talk page is to discuss the page attached to it, not to talk about what you like, so please stay focussed on Janet Mitchell in this discussion. –AnemoneProjectors– 10:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed but it was pertinent to a wider discussion on comparing characters various merits of having their own articles. Please dont treat this project as your personal fiefdom (again). - Bleaney (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't. But if you want those characters to be merged, then it shouldn't be discussed here. That's all I was saying. So can we please get back to the discussion at hand and keep cool heads? I apologise for any offence caused by my comments. None was intended. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Right, let's start again. I'd be happy to see this article merged. In fact I remember thinking it a while back. The character has essentially left the series, and although she might return, she's still a child, and the storylines might get longer but there probably wouldn't be any further reception or development, unless she was an adult or recast. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree to a merge, I do think that Janet will reappear one day recast and older, and i'm sure there WILL be further reception and development because of the uniqueness of her situation. But happy for a merge for now to see what happens. Bleaney (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge part 2 

message: Grace is credited just as Grace, please don't change that (she is a minor, this is actually rather important to her family). Guy (Help!) 21:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an OTRS request from her family, so I'm going to remove this. –AnemoneProjectors– 12:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grace 

message: Why does Janet's duration show as 2006-08, 2010-2012, when Janet appeared in 2009.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.100.198 (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Duration

message: Given that the character turns 18 this year - and that by definition, Grace must be the same age or older - is it still applicable to describe Grace as a "child actress"? I know strictly speaking she won't be an adult until the day she turns 18, but I don't see the designation of "child actress" on similar pages (e.g. Emmerdale's Amelia Flannagan, who is only 15). To me, the team would denote a small child. Surely at nearly 18, she's just an actress? SpamFritterBitter (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Child actress?