User talk:Junipers Liege/EastEnders families

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Family main pages[edit]

Presently only the Beales, Brannings, Mitchells, Ferreria's, and Watts have family main pages. It is still undetermined exaclty what a main page about a family shoud/shouldn't include. However, I hope, by the end of this year, for the EE WikiProject to have created main pages for: Slaters and Butchers. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 08:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed mind about Butchers - given how few of them just as easy to do here. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 13:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Takers for writing up a family summation[edit]

Once we have enough of these we can probably go live and then add on the rest at will? If you want to take a family, just sign up for them and strike through when done.

Forgotten families[edit]

Any that were forgotten??? ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 13:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should the Fox family be combined with the Johnsons, since they are now a complete family unit of Lucas, Denise, Chelsea, Libby and Jordan, with Trina also included? Would Owen be a part of that family too? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that Denise is the character that unites all the others, so it makes sense to me that the Fox family would include Lucas, Jordan and Owen, and more loosely Trina and Liz. The Johnson & Turner characters haven't to any great extent operated independently of their association with the Foxes. Frickative 17:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably agree with Frickative, for a similar reason: that the "Fox" element of the family has been in the show longer and given Lucas must inevitably depart sooner rather than later, will remain so. (Added Fowler - thanks for the heads up, AP) ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 17:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll try to do the Foxes then. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the deleted list of families in EastEnders to see if any families are missing. It was basically a complete list of characters from the same family, even if in some cases the characters may not have appeared on screen, so here's the list (I'll bold any that might be important and have been missed):

Ahmed (who? Jabbar Ahmed?), Allen (as in Johnny and Ruby), Banks (Tom), Beale, Branning, Butcher, Carpenter, Cotton, Crawford (Stella), di Marco, Dunn (Laura), Evans, Ferreira (interestingly, lists characters named Jandeep and Ravin), Flaherty (might be worth including separate from the Beales, with a main link to the Ireland episodes), Fowler, Fox, Harkinson (Derek), Healy (maybe), Hills, Hobbs, Jackson, Jeffery, Kapoor, Karim, Masood, McFarlane, Medeemey (no, no, no), Miller 2002 (as in Rebecca's adoptive parents), Miller 2004, Mistry (Nita), Mitchell, Moon, Osman, Owen, Pappas, Price (Natalie), Raymond, Rose (maybe), Skinner (Ethel), Slater, Smith (Annie), Smith (Gus), Swann (aka Miller), Tavernier, Taylor (Leo), Trott, Trueman, Watts, Wicks, Williams (Cindy), Wilmott-Brown. Thoughts? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about comprehensive! I think there are some that are worth including, but many more that aren't. I think if the entire unit consisted of just one main character and a minor/temporary/recurring character or two, they probably shouldn't be included. Taking away the ones already listed, and the families where only one member was actually a main character, that leaves, I think: Allen, Carpenter, Healy, Jeffery, Kapoor, McFarlane, Rose and both Smiths. I'm not saying I think they should all have a section, just that they're the only ones I would even consider a proper EastEnders "family" for the purpose of discussion. And I think the Flahertys may indeed be worth a separate section too. Frickative 18:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Kapoors are already listed (they are a big family), I'm not too sure about the others to be honest. I think some of the more notable ones from the list (Healy and Allen) could be subsumed into the Owens and Jacksons. I'm in particular favour of merging the Healy and Owens because it would flesh each family out from 3 to 6 or so. Problem is only Mel is the link and otherwise there was not much connection between them (was her Vicar brother even around when she married Steve?). Definately, any families that just have 1 member should not be included as they obviously aren't family units. I think we are probably agreed that if a family unit has 3 members it probably should be included?? That just leaves us to decide what to do with cases involving 2. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 22:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Healy (97-2002) - Mel, Alex (97-99), Jane (mother: 1 ep), Jeff (97-2000); off-screen daughter
  • Rose (96-2000) - Matthew (97-2000), Michael (father: 96-99), Susan (mother: 97-99), some off-screen mention of relatives.
  • Carpenter (85-87) - Hannah (85-87); Tony (85-87); (85-87); (85-86)
  • Smith (85-88) - Chris (85-88), Edie (87-88); Brendon (son: 1 ep); Mary (85-88); Annie (infant: 85-88)
  • Jeffrey (85-87) - Naima (85-87); Saeed (1985); Farrukh (87); Rezaul (86-88)
  • McFarlane (96-02) - Mick (96-02); Josie (98-2000); Kim (98-02)

I have absolutely NO memory of the Smiths aside from Mary or the Carpenters.... and only very vague flashes of Naima Jeffrey (remember all the McFarlanes though - and Healys). I personally do not believe the second Smith family (Gus, et al) should be included. The Flaherty's are tricky, as with the exception of Connor and daughter, none were in Walford (correct). Having said that, they should probably be included. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 00:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting just looking at this, how "ethnically and socially" diversified EE was in the beginning - and how Smith and Holland made a real attempt to represent a diversified London - and looking at how, towards the end of the 80s, the show became much more "whitened" and socially solidified into basically upper lower-class types. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 00:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having been watching the 1985 episodes, I believe the Carpenters and (Mary) Smiths should be included. Also, the Healys should be there soemwhere, especially as Mel has had another husband. The Jefferys are included, so that just leaves the Roses, McFarlanes and 2nd Smiths. They should probably all be included even if it's just a family tree. I reckon any family with 3 or more members can be listed. That's why I added the Highways. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 11:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brannings[edit]

Ooh I'm having fun doing the Brannings! Due to crossover with the Jacksons, I thought I'd let yo know I'm including everyone apart from Carol and her children and grandchildren, so Jim, Suzy, April, Derek, Jack, Max, Bradley, Tanya, etc, though obviously the Jacksons do get a mention at the start. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you took the Brannings - them and the Beales I was dreading doing!!!! I think your selection is right. Initially, I thought that the Jacksons could entirely be incorporated into the Brannings (in a manner similar to the way the Fowlers are), but then I forgot about figures like Blossom who wouldn't fit under the Brannings. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 21:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will do the Butchers then perhaps try and get another 1 or 2 done. I won't be doingt the Mitchells though. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 21:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL I have a feeling some families like the Mitchells and Beales will be a nightmare, maybe the Wickses and Taverniers, and I bet we can't find anything for the Owens ;) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not even sure the Owens should be listed? There is Steve and Mel, and then Jackie who was in it for a year or so (and Steve's mum - played by the wonderful Sheila Hancock: but not sure if that in itself is a reason to keep a family!!) I think the Hills, Kapoors, Wickses, Taverniers, Raymonds and maybe the Truemans are going to be hard to source and may end up being composed chiefly of plot details. The problem with the Mitchells and Beales is that there is so much to cover; also, like the Watts, they have a sort of staggered history which can be tricky to summarise (but are worse than the Watts because there are more of them); the Fowlers should be comparatively simple as all the Fowlers (bar Mark's numerous wives and Sonia) were effectively in the show from the start, so it'll probably just be a matter of recounting their creation, a storyplot or two, and departure. The Jacksons probably won't be too difficult either given the recent attention paid them. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 22:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did the Brannings but forgot to mention Amy, and there's probably loads of other stuff that can be added. It was hard! Yeah you're probably right about all of those. Truemans I imagine would be ok though. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page layout[edit]

As you two have more experience with WP than myself (and with this sort of thing), is there anything missing from the page that needs/can be included? Are small infoboxes an idea (idk, containing length, years on screen, status). But I think that may then clutter up the page. Drop down menus listing members/actors?

Is it ok to just have paragraphs of text. That is fine if it is. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 21:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could use the EastEnders family infobox I created. The infobox could contain the family members extension, which is hidden. It might be a bit cluttered, I don't know. I'm hoping that this will end up with some consistency as we might all have different styles or format our references differently, for example. Just paragraphs of text is ok, but maybe if we don't do infoboxes, we could consider some images? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the best way is probably to try (once we have got enough families on the page) and see what works what doesn't. One of the things I like about the info box is that we can use it as the standard place to link names.... as you point out, the text needs standardising, but I think it may end up looking over-linked if every time a character is introduced in a section they are linked (along with the actor) - it could look a bit messy. Obviously, some links can still be included in the text, but the info box (if used) could provide the standard place to look for links - idk, just thinking out loud really. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 22:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the linking thing is a great idea, I don't think there's a problem with treating each section as if it's a different article with regard to linking to other pages. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried adding some images in now it's getting to be a bit of a wall of text, but previewing it, I'm not sure it actually works that well. I usually like throwing in free-use images here there and everywhere to break text up, but especially in some of the shorter sections, it doesn't seem very... representative? For instance, there's no real problem with an image of Todd Carty as part of the lengthy Fowler section, but I put the image of Michael-Joel David Stuart besides the Fox section, and as it's roughly the same size as the paragraph on the family, it seems as though the image is sort of representative of the entire section, which a picture of one minor character clearly isn't. Same to a perhaps lesser extent with the Watts section, where one image of Letitia Dean is the same size as the entire paragraph.
Used sparingly, I wonder if we could include a few of the 25th anniversary family portraits. Abominable Photoshopping aside, the non-free rationale would be pretty strong given that they include so many characters, and the multiple actors are never all photographed together in real life, meaning there's no chance of free alternative. Frickative 12:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Watts section can always easily be expanded if necessary - I deliberately minimised it, and was simply planning on expanding it once everything was done if it seemed short in comparison to other families. (I think families that have main page articles should be very short.... obviously, it is difficult to do that for the Brannings, Beales, Mitchells, and Slaters because the main page articles are in such a bad state that one doesn't know what to include and what not, so they effectively don't have main pages). I've actually been going about Wikipedia trying to find examples of pages that are similar to what we are constructing, to see how others have formatted such articles, but have found no real luck yet. DW obviously has alot of lists, but their summaries are usually a mixture of long and short, which helps break up the text somewhat, whereas ours are all long summaries (of necessity). They do use infoboxes, but I am not 100% sold on the idea of infoboxes as yet? I'm going to have another hunt about later; hopefully inspiration will strike! ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 12:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The family portrait is a good idea.... my only objection is that it would obviously favour current families; it also is a misrepresentation of some of the families, imo. The "Butcher" one is particular bad in this regard, composed of Bianca, Janine, Ricky, Carol (!!), Bianca's "illigetimate" children, Liam, and Pat. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 12:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, some of them aren't really suitable, and we don't want a recentist slant. There are some older family portraits, though, I think they usually take a group shot when new families are introduced - I've seen ones for the Millers and Slaters on the BBC while putting those sections together. We could possibly also composite available free images together where possible, like so:
...although obviously they don't look as good as a non-free group image would. Frickative 13:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a screenshot on the Watts family from Xmas 2004; not the best but it includes them all except Angie, so that may possibly qualify it on that basis; perhaps we should mix it up; use the photoshoped families; free images (in the manner you've got above to get the msot notable family members; and screenshots. Not every family needs to have them, of course. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 14:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karim family[edit]

I copied the development section from Karim family to here, and I'm wondering if, after this goes live, we should redirect the article here, and move the characters into the character lists. I know Gungadin did a great job on it, and I'll notify her of this discussion, but after this goes live, the article will be kind of redundant, unless it can be expanded further. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely. I had a quick look at the Karim article yesterday and was sort of thinking exactly the same thing. Great minds and all that. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 22:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chance of expansion for such a forgotten family is slim to none. The only reason I would object is if the images get deleted if they are merged to a list, but will leave it with your judgement.GunGagdinMoan 11:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can keep the article and just severely reduce what we have here then. I don't mind that. anemoneprojectors talk 00:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would prefer the article to be removed altogether and the characters integrated into the character lists.... has it been decided whether or not to include images on the character lists? ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 00:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be getting away with it for the last year or more but we used to have images for all the characters in the lists and then we were forced to reduce it to 5 per page but then more people came along and started removing them. It's all in the WT:EE archives - archive 9 or 10 - I was reading it today. Trampikey called someone a Nazi lol. At the moment I think the only images we have in the lists are ones that have been merged in the last year or so. Though I would like to see some added to the 2010 article. anemoneprojectors talk 00:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fowlers[edit]

Phew - ok, did the Fowlers. I haven't noted Sonia return as not sure if that should go under Jackson; depending on the focus of the Jackson summary.... but it can be easily added to end of Fowler summary anyway. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 08:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was more of a Jackson return, but mention was made of Sonia and Martin's marital problems, up to you. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

When this is done and a nice "The family in EastEnders" section is included, would this be eligible for DYK? An article is not considered new if it "consist[s] of text spun off from a pre-existing article" and some of this is from other pages. Just wondered. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, where I have taken info from other pages I have tried to rework it so it shouldn't at least look like it comes from the same page to a stranger!! Besides which I envisage the section on family in EE to be completely new..... if worst comes to worst we *could* publish the "family in EE" section as the page and then, once it has been accepted as a DYN page add in the list of families? Sneaky, but that ought to work - or is that going against the spirit of the law to much! lol ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 12:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't rework the Karims, and even some of the Masoods stuff I copied from individual family members. I think it would be a bit sneaky to do what you suggested, especially as it would be obvious from the page history and this talk page that we had done it! It doesn't have to go for DYK, but I just want as many as possible as it's unlikely to happen for new characters. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's no reason why we can't submit it and get a ruling? We could say that while a few parts are similar to other pages, the vast majority is new material? This would be particularly so if some of the less notable families require us to go source hunting to get material that isn't just plot (Evans, McFarlane's, even the Moons - as presently there are no sources in Moon articles, and it should be easy enough to find some); that would all constitute new material. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 13:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't know one way or the other, but I wonder if there might be enough new material to justify it. A few sections will come from pre-existing articles, but the majority of content is new to Wikipedia. Oh! I just read the more indepth page of DYK rules, and I think under rule A5, this article would be fine, as: "If some of the text was copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article." So I think it would be eligible as a 5x expansion :) Frickative 13:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's ok then! This would defo be a 5x expansion of what was copied from other articles. (Well, we can check to make sure) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Family in EE write-up[edit]

I've been looking but haven't been able to find much.... I have a subscription to High-Beam atm (though don't intend on keeping it too much longer, so if there are any articles you need copied give us a bell. I've got Kat Slater and Dennis Rickman to source, but may also try and source Alfie and the Moons - and perhaps the Evans - it is generally difficult to get articles before 1997 though).

Frickative, you mentioned you had come across a few... where; can you link them? I'd like to begin writing this up so we can go live with the page even if we don't have some of the more obscure families done at the time. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 05:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just searched Google Books for 'EastEnders family', 'EastEnders families' etc, and it brought up a lot of titles which, from the summaries, seemed to have relevant passages. They're not all freely available of course, but even limiting the search to full view & preview books still brings up 300-600 results to trawl though :) Frickative 12:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a little bit on page 73 of this book that's turned out not very useful for what I was reading it for, but might be worth a line here. Nice quote from Big Mo anyway: "Family is important because when the chips are down that's all you've got." Frickative 18:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if anyone's noticed but the first three paragraphs of EastEnders#Characters are about family. anemoneprojectors talk 11:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I will get to this sometime next week. Bit busy atm, but should have plenty of time next week. :) ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 12:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And next week never came :( –anemoneprojectors– 17:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Berridge: "Clans were the original building blocks of EastEnders, and that's what the show is returning to now. When it started, it was all about the Watts, the Fowlers, the Wicks and the Beales. For a while, that focus was lost; there were too many single characters hanging around on the periphery of the action, while the family groups were being weakened and compromised. Then the Slaters were bought in as a big, powerful clan, and the Watts family was rebuilt. The Fowlers were reconstituted in 2004, as were the Beales and Mitchells. Those families are the mainspring of most of the best drama, because once you've got family groups you instantly have conflicts of loyalty." – Smith, Rupert (2005). EastEnders: 20 Years in Albert Square. London: BBC Books. p. 44. ISBN 0563521651. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frickative (talk • contribs)

I have added the Berridge quote. –anemoneprojectors– 10:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hubbards and Slaters[edit]

@Soaper1234: Hey, thanks for your great work here. I wondered if you thought the Hubbards should be merged with the Foxes, as like the Johnsons, they joined the Foxes and then left, while Kim and Denise remained constant. Also, there is a lot of information about the Slaters there although I haven't read it yet, but it looks like we have an independent article. What do you think? — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 09:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AnemoneProjectors, thank you. I'd be happy to merge them together - their entry even states they are just an extension of the Foxes. I'm glad you've said that about the Slaters as I was thinking this while creating it. It was a big task and as I was going along, I felt that I was missing information which could be good for a main article. I'd quite like to develop it into a main article and with it being a big task, it could make a good collaborative project? Let me know your thoughts. Soaper1234 - talk 17:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Soaper1234: As much as I would love to collaborate, I'm not sure I can commit to it. As you may have noticed, I've barely edited anything in mainspace lately or any of my drafts other than EE episode lists - but I do have a lot of time off work again (I said this last year as well!) so maybe I can help, but as I've got used to not editing Wikipedia much lately, I don't know if I'm as into it as I used to be :-( But I'm going to try, or at least I'll try to try! I bet there is already a userspace draft for the Slaters in someone's userspace as well. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 17:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AnemoneProjectors: That's a shame, but I understand. If you ever spot anything online or change your mind, join in at User:Soaper1234/Slaters. I have noticed you haven't been around as much, which has been a shame. It would be nice to see you around again so please give it some thought. I've not been in as much as I would like either, but that's life I guess! Soaper1234 - talk 18:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Soaper1234: It's on my watchlist now so hopefully I'll be able to have a look at updates if I get time to check my watchlist! — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 18:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AnemoneProjectors: Thank you! Soaper1234 - talk 19:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Soaper1234: I've merged the Hubbards with the Foxes but I just copied the paragraphs over so it needs some cleanup for duplication. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 18:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AnemoneProjectors: No problem. I'll sort that. Soaper1234 - talk 22:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Soaper1234: Thanks, I didn't mean to force you to do it but I thought as you wrote it all it would be easier, also I figured you wouldn't really mind too much :-) — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 22:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AnemoneProjectors: Don't worry about it - you didn't! It took me about 5 minutes to merge so it wasn't a problem. Soaper1234 - talk 22:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Junipers_Liege/EastEnders_families&oldid=1136173535"