| Revision as of 09:02, 8 January 2014 editAnemoneProjectors (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators176,340 edits →Scheduling changes: Media Centre← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:10, 2 February 2014 edit undoAlex250P (talk | contribs)2,679 edits →Scheduling changesNext edit → | ||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
| :I already brought these things up at ], so I'm glad someone else has noticed. I agree, anyway. I personally doubt that the five episodes a week will continue, as the episodes are still being filmed in blocks of four, as evidenced by directors directing four episodes. Perhaps from 20 January, it will revert to four per week as then a director's block will start on Monday for the first time since last September! A permanent change to five per week would definitely have been announced, IMO, but we shall see. –<font color="green" face="Tahoma">]</font><font color="#BA0000" face="Tahoma">]</font>– 20:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC) | :I already brought these things up at ], so I'm glad someone else has noticed. I agree, anyway. I personally doubt that the five episodes a week will continue, as the episodes are still being filmed in blocks of four, as evidenced by directors directing four episodes. Perhaps from 20 January, it will revert to four per week as then a director's block will start on Monday for the first time since last September! A permanent change to five per week would definitely have been announced, IMO, but we shall see. –<font color="green" face="Tahoma">]</font><font color="#BA0000" face="Tahoma">]</font>– 20:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::BBC's Media Centre, TV Programme Information section, lists four episodes for the week 18-24 January - Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, so it looks like my theory may have been correct. –<font color="green" face="Tahoma">]</font><font color="#BA0000" face="Tahoma">]</font>– 09:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC) | ::BBC's Media Centre, TV Programme Information section, lists four episodes for the week 18-24 January - Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, so it looks like my theory may have been correct. –<font color="green" face="Tahoma">]</font><font color="#BA0000" face="Tahoma">]</font>– 09:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ==Removal of information from articles== | |||
| Hello, I understand that there are a few members on here who are dedicated to the upkeep of these articles, which are some of the best written in terms of soap articles. However, it still infuriates me how things such as dates of birth and dates of death have been removed from the infoboxes and how suddenly without any form of discussion or consensus, characters names have gone from being "née" to just "previously" - therefore indistinguishable from maiden and say, previous married names. I understand some users may have their valid reasons as to why - but I can't help but feel that these sort of decisions have just become the decisions of a few members. I stumbled across a debate on the Digital Spy soaps forum recently that protested the removal of dates from the infoboxes, and after reading through and enquiring I found valid reasons as to why they shouldn't have been removed. Is there anyway we can have a discussion about these sorts of things? ] (]) 16:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:10, 2 February 2014
Shortcuts
 | EastEnders Project‑class | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Bobby Beale
Hey all. I've started working on a draft for Bobby Beale which is located here. Does anybody have any opinions on my draft? Would you say it's ready to be split? As you can see, I've exhausted every source possible but if anybody has any mags or other sources that relate to Bobby, please pop them on the talk page; would be most appreciated. Bobby is quite a long running character and in my opinion, I think he's eligible for his own article so what are your thoughts? Cheers. George Sorby 20:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, happy to split! Bleaney (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Wait for him to grow up and get a significant storyline of his own. - JuneGloom Talk 22:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Has Tiffany been in any significant storylines of her own? She has her own article... and the character has been in EastEnders for a much shorter time. Bleaney (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Agreeing with Bleaney on the Tiffany point. George Sorby 22:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- What an obscure choice for an article. He never does anything. If there were more information - a good sized development section then I doubt no one would have any issues. We can just pretend Bleaney did not say "Tiffany has an article".Rain the 1 23:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Personally I think Tiffany should be in a list too. Just because she has an article doesn't mean Bobby should have one. Imagine for a moment that Tiffany didn't have her own article, what would your reason be for splitting Bobby then? - JuneGloom Talk 00:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh I know, I know theres no excuse in saying a weak article should allow another... It just bugs me that on here at least Tiffany is treated by some like she's an essential cast member, whereas Bobby doesn't, and has a bit more storyline development and history in the soap (remember when Gary Hobbs thought he was his?). I think George has put together what he had to work with very well, and its much better sourced than a lot of the character articles we have. But maybe we should wait. Bleaney (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- My thoughts: The draft for Bobby looks good but should be used to bulk out his list entry as there's not that much real-world information, especially if every source has been exhausted. I don't know if there's anything in the soap magazines but I really doubt it - I certainly haven't seen anything in the year or two I've been reading them. As for Tiffany, there might be more information about her but then again there might not. If her article can't be significantly expanded, then we should probably merge her to a list entry. I'm sure there are more award nominations to add for her though. Those alone might make the character particularly notable. –anemoneprojectors– 19:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh I know, I know theres no excuse in saying a weak article should allow another... It just bugs me that on here at least Tiffany is treated by some like she's an essential cast member, whereas Bobby doesn't, and has a bit more storyline development and history in the soap (remember when Gary Hobbs thought he was his?). I think George has put together what he had to work with very well, and its much better sourced than a lot of the character articles we have. But maybe we should wait. Bleaney (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Personally I think Tiffany should be in a list too. Just because she has an article doesn't mean Bobby should have one. Imagine for a moment that Tiffany didn't have her own article, what would your reason be for splitting Bobby then? - JuneGloom Talk 00:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Has Tiffany been in any significant storylines of her own? She has her own article... and the character has been in EastEnders for a much shorter time. Bleaney (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Wait for him to grow up and get a significant storyline of his own. - JuneGloom Talk 22:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Alice Branning
Done my draft...located here. Thoughts? George Sorby 21:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's a good start, but I'm sure there is plenty more info out there. I see nothing about the Michael/Janine storyline. - JuneGloom Talk 23:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, as I said on the draft's talk page, there's loads out there about the Janine and Michael stuff, and her kleptomania. –anemoneprojectors– 21:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh and I'll be happy to provide the refs for the episodes... but if you know the dates it'll be loads easier (save me reading through my episode notes!). I keep a list of filled out episode refs for easy access! :-) –anemoneprojectors– 21:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Sharongate
Hi guys. Having just done some work on the Sharongate article, it occurred to me that really this article could need a bit of updating, specifically in light of Sharon's most recent return, and her restarting a relationship with Phil. I know that the term 'Sharongate' specifically refers to the Grant/Sharon/Phil love triangle, but the article expands quite a lot on Sharon's various tribulations with both Mitchell brothers. Surely as Sharon getting back together with Phil in 2013 effectively restarts a storyline that started over 20 years ago, it should be referenced in the Sharongate article? Anyway... does anyone fancy having a go? Bleaney (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- It might be worth mentioning it, but as it's not part of the actual "Sharongate" storyline, I don't think we need to go too deeply into detail. Until Grant comes back, of course ;-) –anemoneprojectors– 11:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well feel free AP... :) Bleaney (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- And you :-) –anemoneprojectors– 15:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well feel free AP... :) Bleaney (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Episode numbers
Hi everyone. I hope you are all well. I've now made live the article on AJ Ahmed. I added the number of his first episode to the infobox, even though we haven't done it before. Some Corrie characters have this though (though it seems this habit stopped in 2011). I think it's a really good idea though. And I'm also thinking of places where EastEnders is shown with a delay of a few weeks, for example, in South Africa, they will today be watching the episode we saw on 9 September, and over at BBC Nordic, they're currently watching the episodes we saw on 8 and 9 August, so for them, Sadie Young's first appearance is today. What are people's thoughts on this? The only time it might cause a problem is with double episodes that look like one episode of twice the length. –anemoneprojectors– 12:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- In the infobox, would it be instead of a first appearance date, or as well as? Bleaney (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- As well as, like I did in AJ Ahmed. –anemoneprojectors– 20:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I like it! - Bleaney (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yay :-) I don't think we can do this for all the characters, but recent ones for sure. –anemoneprojectors– 08:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I like it! - Bleaney (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- As well as, like I did in AJ Ahmed. –anemoneprojectors– 20:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Carter family tree
I made a tree for the family. Is is accurate to the best of our knowledge? –anemoneprojectors– 09:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Is it really worthwhile putting the two 'unknowns' at the top of the tree? Apart from that, it looks fine. Bruno Russell (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I thought it best to show the parents at the top rather than just a flat line, even though their names are not known. I only really made it for use in the families category, rather than some article. That seems to be how most EE family trees are used on Misplaced Pages. –anemoneprojectors– 20:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Lucas Johnson serial killing storyline
I think there should be a page on the storyline of the serial killings of Lucas Johnson. What do you think? Bruno Russell (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think it should be covered by the character's page, rather than given its own article. It's all about Lucas so can all be covered there. I don't recall that much information at the time that could be used. –anemoneprojectors– 20:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Sonia
Reliable sources (more so than the Mirror) such as are treating Sonia's return as unconfirmed reports for now, and there has certainly been no announcement made. It's worth mentioning at Sonia Fowler as reported, but I think it should not be listed in infoboxes, List of Eastenders characters etc. as fact until it is confirmed. U-Mos (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Another case of David Wicks? The BBC waited too long to announce that one. "They are finalising details" tells me that they will announce the return once the details are finalised. –anemoneprojectors– 11:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Way too early for us to confirm this, we are an encyclopedia not an entertainment website. I say we should wait for the BBC. - Bleaney (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- You're right, the details may never be finalised as it could all go wrong and she might not return. –anemoneprojectors– 15:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I really think in general we should always wait for BBC confirmation of a character arrival/return/departure. The only exceptional circumstances should be situations where the BBC has practically stated that it is keeping something secret (like when David and Simon Wicks returned for Pat's death). I don't we think waited too long for David's most recent reappearance... we did what an encyclopedia should do and waited on official confirmation from the BBC, while making reference to the rumours in the characters's article. Bleaney (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- It depends on the information given in the source. Natalie Cassidy might go on the radio or TV tomorrow and say "I am definitely coming back". But in general we should wait for the official announcement - but the source doesn't have to be the BBC because all the news sites reveal these things at the same moment the BBC does. –anemoneprojectors– 21:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't have to be the BBC source that's used, but the BBC should have confirmed it. Yes, for instance if Danny Dyer announced on his official twitter feed that he had joined EE I guess we could use it, but TBH I cant think of any occasion where an actor has announced their joining EE before the BBC announces it... - Bleaney (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I was just using it as an example, but very unlikely. But it has happened... I believe Tanya Franks' website confirmed one of Rainie's returns before anyone else. –anemoneprojectors– 22:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't have to be the BBC source that's used, but the BBC should have confirmed it. Yes, for instance if Danny Dyer announced on his official twitter feed that he had joined EE I guess we could use it, but TBH I cant think of any occasion where an actor has announced their joining EE before the BBC announces it... - Bleaney (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- It depends on the information given in the source. Natalie Cassidy might go on the radio or TV tomorrow and say "I am definitely coming back". But in general we should wait for the official announcement - but the source doesn't have to be the BBC because all the news sites reveal these things at the same moment the BBC does. –anemoneprojectors– 21:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I really think in general we should always wait for BBC confirmation of a character arrival/return/departure. The only exceptional circumstances should be situations where the BBC has practically stated that it is keeping something secret (like when David and Simon Wicks returned for Pat's death). I don't we think waited too long for David's most recent reappearance... we did what an encyclopedia should do and waited on official confirmation from the BBC, while making reference to the rumours in the characters's article. Bleaney (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Mick Carter (Danny Dyer's character)
Just wondering....... I've been working on User:AnemoneProjectors/Mick Carter since the day this was announced, as I just knew there would be a lot to say. I'm still trawling the net for sources, but I wondered if anyone thinks it could go live before he's even appeared? After all, Twelfth Doctor exists, and Mick definitely passes GNG. –anemoneprojectors– 13:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Having said that, I'd probably like to wait for closer to the time so a DYK can go on the main page when he's in the show (or maybe on his first day?!) –anemoneprojectors– 14:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- It looks great, can't believe how much info is out there already. I think you could move it whenever, as it definitely passes GNG. Have you got this week's Inside Soap? There's a great article about Mick and Linda in it. - JuneGloom Talk 18:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I got all three soap mags this week. There isn't actually much in the IS article that hasn't already been said elsewhere, but there are one or two good bits I can add. I think I'll wait at least until we know when his first episode will be. –anemoneprojectors– 08:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, if you think there's anything in the magazine I should add, let me know what and where, because I can't really see anything other than the one bit I already added. –anemoneprojectors– 16:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Blimey, looks good considering that he hasn't even appeared yet! Get's my vote...PS, Danny Dyer is bloody gorgeous! ;-) George Sorby 22:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's great AP, but I would be more comfortable if we had a first episode date before it went live. But yeah, an absolutely fabulous effort. Bleaney (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah I definitely want to wait until at least then. But thanks, both :-) –anemoneprojectors– 12:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's great AP, but I would be more comfortable if we had a first episode date before it went live. But yeah, an absolutely fabulous effort. Bleaney (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Blimey, looks good considering that he hasn't even appeared yet! Get's my vote...PS, Danny Dyer is bloody gorgeous! ;-) George Sorby 22:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- It looks great, can't believe how much info is out there already. I think you could move it whenever, as it definitely passes GNG. Have you got this week's Inside Soap? There's a great article about Mick and Linda in it. - JuneGloom Talk 18:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
You might want to correct "white family campaigner Dr Adrian Rogers" before going live, AP :) Stephenb (Talk) 12:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah I haven't proof read it all yet ;-) –anemoneprojectors– 13:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
EE character Navigation boxes
A discussion has been started here regarding whether characters that do not have an article should appear in the navigation boxes, based on WP:NAV. Similar changes have been made for navboxes for Hollyoaks characters: and Corrie characters: , but (at the moment) there does not seem to be any disagreement about those. Contributions welcome. Stephenb (Talk) 19:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- It appears solved for now, though I do understand the reason. I'd prefer to see all the present characters included, and that goes for the other templates - the Corrie one has had a bit of an edit war going on. But one thing I will say here on the subject of navigation templates is that, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, the main {{EastEnders}} template shouldn't appear on character pages, because the characters aren't in that template. –anemoneprojectors– 15:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Scheduling changes
Couple of things to keep an eye on. Firstly, the omnibus appears to have moved (again) to 11:25pm Friday nights on BBC One, as of last night(January 3) - it's scheduled for the same next week, and the continuity announcer said something about it "settling into its new home". Secondly, as odd as it seems, it looks like a fifth episode has at least temporarily been added to the schedule with no announcement whatsoever - certainly the next two weeks add an episode at 8pm on Wednesday, with no apparent need for rescheduling further along the line, with Waterloo Road having made a seemingly permanent move to 8:30. Nothing much to say without sources right now, but obviously if these schedules become the norm over the next few weeks they will speak for themselves. U-Mos (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- I already brought these things up at Talk:EastEnders#Omnibus edition, so I'm glad someone else has noticed. I agree, anyway. I personally doubt that the five episodes a week will continue, as the episodes are still being filmed in blocks of four, as evidenced by directors directing four episodes. Perhaps from 20 January, it will revert to four per week as then a director's block will start on Monday for the first time since last September! A permanent change to five per week would definitely have been announced, IMO, but we shall see. –anemoneprojectors– 20:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- BBC's Media Centre, TV Programme Information section, lists four episodes for the week 18-24 January - Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, so it looks like my theory may have been correct. –anemoneprojectors– 09:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Removal of information from articles
Hello, I understand that there are a few members on here who are dedicated to the upkeep of these articles, which are some of the best written in terms of soap articles. However, it still infuriates me how things such as dates of birth and dates of death have been removed from the infoboxes and how suddenly without any form of discussion or consensus, characters names have gone from being "née" to just "previously" - therefore indistinguishable from maiden and say, previous married names. I understand some users may have their valid reasons as to why - but I can't help but feel that these sort of decisions have just become the decisions of a few members. I stumbled across a debate on the Digital Spy soaps forum recently that protested the removal of dates from the infoboxes, and after reading through and enquiring I found valid reasons as to why they shouldn't have been removed. Is there anyway we can have a discussion about these sorts of things? Alex250P (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Categories: