Talk:List of EastEnders characters introduced in 2010

First and last for E20 characters

As E20 primarily works as a stand-alone series that can be watched at any time, and as there are only 12 episodes, should we really put dates for the first and last appearances in the infobox for the four characters from E20, or put first as episode 1 and last as episode 12? I think we should kind of treat it as a non-soap and use episode names like any other show does with names for its episodes. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Or don't include EastEnders: E20 in the infobox at all, as a) it clutters it and b) it's an EastEnders infobox, not an EastEnders and it's spin-offs infobox. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd keep E20 in the ibox because it's an important bit of OOU information, not certain about the dates though. With the Holby characters I usually just put the year in brackets beside the spinoff parameter, eg. Casualty@Holby City (2007), Holby Blue (2008). Takes up a bit less space, anyway. Plus I'm assuming they all have the same first and last ep, which in turn are the first and last ep of the series anyway? Correct me if I'm wrong, I still haven't watched it yet. Frickative 02:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, they all have the same first and last episode, episode 1 and episode 12. Yes, next to the spin-off we could just put (2010) and remove E20 from first and last. When I said remove E20 from the infobox, I didn't mean the spin-off part, just the dates. Seems a good idea to me. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ohhhhhhhh, mysterious girl

Just like Ryan, who was credited as "Man", there is a mystery girl joining soon, played by Brittany Papple and credited as "Little Girl". She's going to turn up looking for her father, and Ronnie is going to be shocked to find out who the father is. The Daily Star are saying she's a Mitchell. She could be Louise but I don't think so, and if she's not, what should we do about her here? I was really hoping for all sections on this page to have OOU information and any that don't just put them in others, but she might turn out to be significant. Apparently we find out before any character does who she is, so that's good at least. anemoneprojectors talk 10:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, some random website has put the full credits up, going against the BBC's wishes no doubt. anemoneprojectors talk 11:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Santer/Kirkwood

As we now know, Santer and Kirkwood will share the EP credit for two weeks. Vanessa is apparently appearing in the first join episode, so should the introducer therefore be both Santer and Kirkwood? AnemoneProjectors 01:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Same applies to Grace and Jodie. Should we list both? AnemoneProjectors 20:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Jade

I think we can get some OOU for Jade, who's appearing next week. Originally meant to be a prostitute, scenes are being reshot to drop the prostitute reference. It won't be much OOU but could we give her her own section because of it? AnemoneProjectors 23:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think so. I'm not sure how much there is to say, but if the story is being picked up in publications as serious as The Scotsman, it's probably worth a small section. I don't know how relevant it is that it comes at the same time as the Coronation Street alterations because of the Cumbria shootings, but most of the sources do seem to be drawing that parallel. Frickative 10:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I've already written up a little draft section on my laptop but maybe I'll wait until after the broadcast so we know what they changed - surely she'll have something else that Lucas wants her to pray for forgiveness for. AnemoneProjectors 11:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe I won't wait. I'm gonna do it now. AnemoneProjectors 11:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I just realised. They might have changed the character totally and it might not be Jade. But we can deal with that after the episode I suppose. Tonight Lucas was supposed to pull into a car park known for prostitutes but that was the first refilmed scene - he went to a bar instead. AnemoneProjectors 23:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Just wanted to start a discussion on this. I've been commenting out infoboxes where the section containing them is very short, in order to reduce whitespace in the article. I was going to go through all the older articles and comment out a load more for the sake of whitespace but as yet I haven't got around to it (I only did 2009). I also did it if the infobox only contained basic information that could easily be included in prose - always making sure that it is mentioned in prose. Anyway my question is should Grace and Jodie have visible infoboxes even though at the moment there would be a large whitespace in both sections, since they have more than just "basic information" (i.e a family section, etc)? AnemoneProjectors 19:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Jodie's whitespace isn't so bad now so I've left the ibox in. AnemoneProjectors 19:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely Stacey's baby should be given an infobox? The amount of family she will have... Alex250P (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no real-world informaton on the character so we're not even giving the baby her own section. AnemoneProjectors 20:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Aha, another EastEnders birth and I'm back with the same question. Shouldn't Richard Mitchell be given an infobox? As even though he is a week old the storyline of his adoption takes some turns next week (I read the spoilers) and we'll need to add some information, surely thats enough for an infobox? 90.199.5.246 (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't sign in to post that ^ Alex250P (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to keep character sections for major characters and those with real-world information. At the moment, Lily Branning is the only character with a separate section and no real-world info. I did put Lily in "others" but someone decided to move her. So I'm rather against this. Even if he was separated, I would be against including the infobox as I am trying to cut down on the amount of whitespace in the article. The link to Sam provides people with more information on Richard's family. AnemoneProjectors 19:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I think we should re-define what characters we include and not. As Richard will most likely become a 'major' character. I thought the old system worked well. Maybe full-time cast members (like character's kids) with infoboxes and the like, and only minor characters (few episodes only) in the 'others' section? Alex250P (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Babies are never major characters and Sam isn't back for long. Is she going to leave her baby in Walford? If she is then maybe we should move him to a separate section. AnemoneProjectors 22:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Maria de Costa

I just realised that Judy Browne played a social worker called Maria Leys in 2008 but appeared today as a social worker called Maria de Costa. So we think they are the same person and they forgot she had a last name? Should we merge Maria de Costa with Maria Leys? AnemoneProjectors 19:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if I have a say in this, but yes, I agree they should be merged. Should I do it now? --GSorbyDesroid 19:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I did it anyway, and assumed she got married. If anyone else has a suggestion, such as saying "she was credited as blah in blah and blah in blah" then we can change it. AnemoneProjectors 20:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Grace

This ref says the character was originally going to be called Grace, it's from Thomas' agency.. here.. Any point?RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 18:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean Pearl? That's interesting, and could be worked into the article, though her agency might have just made a mistake. AnemoneProjectors 18:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Pearl I meant to say. :) I think it looks legit enough too. (Hopefully not a mistake as you say.)RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 19:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, Ellen Thomas used to play Pearl Chadwick, so it's either old information or they got mixed up. I reckon it's old because there's no mention of her major role in Coming of Age. AnemoneProjectors 19:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooh when I was looking for confirmation of Jodie's first episode just now I found this that says "With Mercy leaving for Nigeria, Fatboy is gutted. He learns that Pearl is only leaving because she thinks Mercy wants to and vice versa" but then credits her as Grace. That's from the BBC. I guess they write the synopsis before transmission and upload it after, and as her name wasn't really mentioned at the time they must have changed it during filming. AnemoneProjectors 20:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahah! So maybe it's worth the mention now then? They change the names quite a bit don't they in soaps before airing.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 21:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Still, I'm not sure we can say she was originally to be called Pearl without a source that says "she was originally to be called Pearl". AnemoneProjectors 21:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's another ref for her and Mercy, not sure we can use it though.... [1]. MayhemMario (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

As it's on a blog we can't really use it. But her accent seems fine to me. It's certainly better than when Jay Byrd played her in E20! She did have a West Indian accent then! –anemoneprojectors– 19:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

is it? I mean its a good source but if it's a blog we cant really use it... MayhemMario (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, WordPress.com is a blogging site. Regardless, it's not a reliable source. It's just some random guy's opinion. –anemoneprojectors– 12:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael Moon

Shouldn't Michael Moon be a second cousin to Alfie? Alfie's father didn't have any brothers as Alfie's grandfather died in the war and only fathered Alfie's father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.246.251 (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

They said he is Alfie's cousin, not second cousin. See also retroactive continuity. AnemoneProjectors 12:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What explanation are they going to give? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.246.251 (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If they use retroactive continuity then none. AnemoneProjectors 17:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

But if you want a more logical explanation - it could be that Alfie's mother was already called Cherry Moon before she married Alfred Moon, so Michael could be from Alfie's mother's side of the family. Pure speculation. In reality, it's just retroactive continuity. AnemoneProjectors 17:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Michael's page on the official site says he's a second cousin, so I guess they said cousin as you might call your second cousin your cousin, because it's still a type of cousin... AnemoneProjectors 23:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

But... it still says Victoria Moon is his grandmother, which would make him Alfie's cousin. So they've made a mistake somewhere - he can't be Victoria's grandson and Alfie's second cousin. I think we should say he's his cousin because of all the other sources. AnemoneProjectors 00:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's the website that made the mistake. I'd go with what most of the refs say, as we both know that on these websites the team are set out to type out the critrea for their wages.. they ain't really anything to do with the show. :p I bet anyway, in the next few eps he is gonna refer to him as his cousin.. Btw, I just tweeted at youuu! RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 00:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it now to match the website - like I said you might refer to a second cousin as "a cousin". And with the announcement of Eddie it seems all the more important. AnemoneProjectors 14:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Greg Jessop

Should he be classified as Present; regular (departing) because he is only going to be on screen for a bit longer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.3.102 (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as we know, it's only a short term contract, so unless it's been extended without our knowledge, he's departing. AnemoneProjectors 23:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Should Greg Jessop be split off know as he has 10 references but i do have one objection to him being split off and that is that his storylines part arent to long.--MayhemMario (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Try to keep discussion in one place. I replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders#Charcters to be split off

Others - table or definition list?

I've made changes to this table per the new guidelines for tables relating to WP:ACCESS, but I wanted to propose changing it to a definition list. It would mean that...

Character	Date(s)	Actor	Circumstances
Fatima Inzamam	1 January	(uncredited)	Wife of Inzamam Ahmed and mother of Jamila and Ali. She appears before Syed Masood's wedding to Amira Shah but leaves when Inzamam's brother Masood Ahmed tells Inzamam he is no longer welcome at the wedding.[1]
Emma West	14–15 January	Ellie Beavan[2]	Archie Mitchell's solicitor.[3] She arrives for the reading of Archie's will, but her paperwork gets dropped and blows around the Square. When Archie's second wife Peggy finds out that Archie divorced his first wife Glenda, Glenda denies it but Emma confirms that this would be possible even without Glenda's signature. Before she leaves, Billy Mitchell invites her to come back for a drink any time she wants.

would become something like....

Fatima Inzamam — uncredited (1 January)

Wife of Inzamam Ahmed and mother of Jamila and Ali. She appears before Syed Masood's wedding to Amira Shah but leaves when Inzamam's brother Masood Ahmed tells Inzamam he is no longer welcome at the wedding.^[1]

Emma West — Ellie Beavan^[2] (14–15 January)

Archie Mitchell's solicitor.^[3] She arrives for the reading of Archie's will, but her paperwork gets dropped and blows around the Square. When Archie's second wife Peggy finds out that Archie divorced his first wife Glenda, Glenda denies it but Emma confirms that this would be possible even without Glenda's signature. Before she leaves, Billy Mitchell invites her to come back for a drink any time she wants.

Any thoughts? AnemoneProjectors 18:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the table, but try to find different ways, this is interesting ;-) --GSorbyDesroid - (Contribs!) 18:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The table (probably) does take up less space... I think I prefer it. Do we like the change? If not, sorry but it's tough! AnemoneProjectors 20:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer the table format (so much, that I stole it for the Neighbours articles :P). - JuneGloom07 Talk? 20:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Kylie, Connor & Mitch

Ive always thought the way that these three characters were lumped together on here was clumsy, but surely now Connor at least should be listed on his own? His storylines have stretched past Billy's gang connections and death, and he's had a lot more action/dialogue than other characters that have been listed on here. Anyone agree? Bleaney (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I agree :) --GSorbyDesroid - (Contribs!) 21:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason was because writing about them all separately would just be triplication. I've considered it since but thought it might be awkward. Separating Connor from Kylie and Mitch would look stupid so Mitch would have to go back in "others" if we did that. We only really have real-world information about Kylie as well (a single line of reception but it was the only reason they all got taken out of "others"). AnemoneProjectors 22:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Mitch should go into others as he really was a minor part. Kylie is debatable, but Connor HAS to have his own entry now surely. Just because it might make other characters entries less neat is no justification for Connor to be lumped in. Bleaney (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thing is the whole paragraph about their original storyline will be triplicated. I don't see the point in that. I'm working on it right now though. Does Connor have to have his own entry? Is he sticking around for long? AnemoneProjectors 22:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Connor doesn't have to have his own entry. He has only been back since Billie's funeral and it's only within the last week or so that we've started to see him more regularly around the Square. I wouldn't give him his own article just yet, but if he's still around in a few months time, maybe we can consider it then. --5 albert square (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

We're not talking about his own article, just his own section separate from Kylie and Mitch. AnemoneProjectors 22:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I was kind of hoping that since he got kicked out that would be it but he's back tomorrow. Anyway I've worked something out now. Shall I go ahead? AnemoneProjectors 22:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Do it, anythings got to be better than the present situation. Bleaney (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's actually anything wrong with how it is right now. It's just that if Connor stays around on his own for much longer then it will mostly be about him anyway. AnemoneProjectors 22:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The other thing is more text for the same amount of information. AnemoneProjectors 22:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry AP my misunderstanding. Well no, he shouldn't have his own paragraph, it really doesn't make sense to break him off from the rest of the group. --5 albert square (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2010 UTC)

We would put Mitch back into "others" and have Kylie and Connor each with their own sections. Why doesn't it make sense? Connor practically has two paragraphs all to himself. AnemoneProjectors 22:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This sounds good AP Bleaney (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends on how exactly the section is split up. I think it was a good editorial decision to group them together initially, rather than duplicate the gang stuff three times over, but I suppose as things have progressed the Kylie/Whitney/Jack parts could be separated from the Connor/Carol bits without too much overlap in between. Frickative 23:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I do have some duplication. How about I do what I've got prepared and others can copyedit as they see fit? AnemoneProjectors 23:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Bleaney (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done AnemoneProjectors 23:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Greg Jessop & Michael Moon.

Where have they gone?! are they coming back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.14.237 (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think someone told me that Michael Moon was returning. Not sure about Greg, I think he was a temporary character but I could be wrong.--5 albert square (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Greg's coming back. Read his section. AnemoneProjectors 01:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And yes, Michael is expected to return. Probably for the you-know-what. AnemoneProjectors 01:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sharon Marshall confirmed today on This Morning that Michael will definitely be back. AnemoneProjectors 17:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Tommy and James

As far as I'm aware, Tommy Moon and James Branning are the only characters left to be added here. As I'm sure we all know, one of them isn't going to last long and then the names will effectively swap over. How are we going to deal with this? AnemoneProjectors 16:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Should we even swap them, as we already know that they are who they are, the just get switched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.14.237 (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the best thing is to deal with them under one entry. I was working on a storyline article in my userspace, but instead I have placed all the information I had collected into this article. AnemoneProjectors 19:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And this would solve issues over WP:COMMONNAME because both babies will be mostly known by the name "James Branning". AnemoneProjectors 19:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a couple more sources: [2] [3] AnemoneProjectors 01:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the storyline "over"? As in Ronnie handed Tommy back to Kat tonight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.3.102 (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No. It was supposed to go on until Christmas 2011 but they're bringing it forward to Easter.--5 albert square (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.3.102 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, they hadn't planned an ending, saying it could last up to two years, but yes now it is expected to end this Easter. AnemoneProjectors 23:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hary Gold

should is still be listed as a regular character, he hasn't appeared for ages now and it doesn't look like he'll be appearing again?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustbeemo789 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't know for sure, so he still should remain as present. But there has been a discussion in the past about him being classified as a regular, where he seems to be more of a recurring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.14.237 (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think he could still appear, maybe we should mark him as past until we know for sure, or he could stay as present forever. It would be a real shame if he was gone for good though. I think looking at the situation now, we were probably wrong to change him to a regular character. AnemoneProjectors 02:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think its highly likely he will appear again, the last we saw of him he had Jack Branning kidnapped before his wedding, and nothing has been resolved. Recently Max has been involved with Stacey's departure, but now that is finished I strongly suspect the spotlight will now refocus on Max and Vanessa. This will in turn re-involve Harry. However, I do now think (seeing as he doesnt live on the square) that Harry could be moved to the recurring section. Then again, Harry has appeared about as much as Grace and Greg over the past few months, and they are regular. Greg is in fact only a temporary character! It's tricky... Bleaney (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Christian's 'other' guy

Shouldn't the man who kissed Christian Clarke on New Years Eve be included in the 'others' section of this list? I'd add him myself, but cant remember his name (if he had one!) Bleaney (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

He didn't have a name, which is why he isn't listed. We only list named characters. He was credited as 'Piper' because that was his occupation. The actor was Ryan Ellsworth. I did list him at first in case Piper was his name but when it turned out it wasn't, I removed him. AnemoneProjectors 16:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I will update Christian's storylines without a name! Bleaney (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done User:MayhemMario 12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean done? You didn't do it –anemoneprojectors– 13:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Splitting off Jodie.

Jodie's section is getting pretty big and she has quite a bit of storyline. Should we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.132.13 (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone already split off Jodie before (I think only a few days ago) and we decided to put her back in this article. I'd say leave off splitting the article just now.--5 albert square (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

She doesn't have enough references. Any undiscussed splits get reverted anyway. AnemoneProjectors 10:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And I have reverted the edits and deleted Jodie Gold (EastEnders) as it is the wrong page title so there's no need for it to be a redirect anyway. AnemoneProjectors 10:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done User:MayhemMario 12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Cathy Murphy/Lorna

Lorna appeared in 1991, as a love interest for Mark Fowler. The source that says she appeared in 1997 is wrong, but this information seems to have been picked up by a couple of other places as well (Digital Spy, Female First). Please stop reverting to the wrong information. I have seen her in 1991 episodes, and walford.net lists her as appearing in 1991 (their character profiles only go up to 1991, are never wrong and have been used as sources by WPEE before). I can't get a link to her profile on there but if you search for her you will see. 144.124.121.55 (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding her to the 1991 page as well. –anemoneprojectors– 21:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done User:MayhemMario12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael Moon (2)

Do you think with have enough information and referneces to split off Michael Moon? Ive counted 10 overall i think thats enough, if not could we please replace that pictrue of him which was deleted?--MayhemMario (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It has 6 references (5 of which are Digital Spy), so it would be premature. –anemoneprojectors– 21:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It now has at least 10 references. 92.4.136.243 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC).

Yusef

I think that we should move Yusef to the regular charters as he has had a proper picture for the website see: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/spoilers/a303087/yusef-provides-support-for-denise.html--MayhemMario (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:List of EastEnders characters#Yusef for existing discussion. –anemoneprojectors– 18:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done User:MayhemMario 12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture

i remember we did have a picture of michael but i got deleted, can it be restored?--MayhemMario (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We'd probably have too many images on this page. –anemoneprojectors– 13:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Danny Mitchell

Danny Mitchell

1. Storylines (tick) 2. Referneces (tick)

I dont see there any reason ,apart from that he has left, at why he cannot be split off he has 12 refernces thats enough?! Do you agree?--MayhemMario (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I quite like Danny being here, simply because it feels like we could end up with a list of 10 characters who won't ever be split off, and 13 short paragraphs with links to main articles. Also it adds more references to the article, and we know it won't get any longer. I don't think he takes up too much space, and storylines can be made shorter. But that's just my personal preference. But we normally discuss splitting off characters centrally at WT:EE. –anemoneprojectors– 17:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no need to split of this relatively (no pun intended!) minor character in the history of EE - he was only in it for around 6 months and had no major storylines. Stephenb (Talk) 08:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I went and did it. I think he's notable enough. –anemoneprojectors– 12:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Edward/TV Scoop reference

Per WP:BRD I am discussing this instead of trying to explain in an edit summary while I make another revert. Firstly, I don't think TV Scoop is a reliable source (although it should really be Mario starting this because it's Bold, Revert, Discuss; not Bold, Revert, Revert). Second, "Carol doesn't really mean anything by it, but she makes a comment about Dot’s relationship with Edward that really stings" is about Carol and Dot, not Edward, and doesn't seem relevant here (plus is in-universe info, if it is important it can go with the storyline). "Dot thinks Carol is implying there is something inappropriate about their friendship, and she's outraged and humiliated" is already covered by "Dot [...] is mortified when [Carol] calls him her 'fancy man' and is worried that other people will think they are more than friends." –anemoneprojectors– 21:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont see why TV Scoop isnt a reliable source it's just like any other... MayhemMario (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any other sources reporting on what TV Scoop say, like how sources re-report Digital Spy reports, for example. Also, they refer to themseves as a "blog" on Twitter. But even if we can keep it, the only thing we need to keep is the word "doting", the rest is just repetition in quotes of what's already paraphrased. We should paraphrase quotes where we can (e.g. Rob Grayson is way too quote-heavy at the moment). –anemoneprojectors– 12:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a blog, contributors use blogging nicknames, and they call themselves a blog, so... I'd say it's a blog and WP:BLOGS applies. Now, in its favour, it looks as though back in 2009, The Independent went through a phase of republishing its editorials in their e-opinions column [4]. However, I don't think we can extrapolate from that that "shinychris" is an "established expert" on EastEnders, and I'd be much inclined not to use it. Plus, I think there are only very limited circumstances under which we should be using information from unnamed "insiders" anyway. Frickative 14:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Frickative. I don't get this whole "insiders" thing really. I know a lot of insider quotes have been added recently, they're always called "Walford insiders". Should we mainly only be using official spokesperson quotes and those from named people? It does sound a bit gossipy. –anemoneprojectors– 16:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeahh that's my thinking. Spokespeople or press officers are fine, but an "insider" could be anyone right down to the tea-lady. Whenever there's fake news about cast departures or similar, they always originate with these "insiders". I don't have many of the lists watch-listed so I don't know what sort of quotes have been added lately, but personally I try to limit use to where the storyline has already played out, so its veracity is less questionable, and the quote itself is very insightful, to the point the article would be weaker without it. Most of them just describe what will happen in a storyline, anyway, so their usefulness is about on par with a plot recap. Frickative 10:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I do remove quotes where they are just a recap of plot. –anemoneprojectors– 10:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

believe me AP definetly does!!!! :D MayhemMario (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

James branning

James branning was listed as being half sibling of amy mitchell, however as ronnie and roxy are sisters, this would make them threee-quarter cousins. See http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570138.html#Sib_Relationships for clarification.