Talk:Lucy Beale

Detail

This page is far too detailed. Not everthing that happens to Lucy has to be included in such detail. Ive started to reduce.Gungadin♦ 22:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

All the characters with current storylines are getting out of hand with poorly written and unneccesary stuff being added on a daily basis. We really need to keep an eye on all additions and clean them up straight away. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 12:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

first appearance

peter and lucy were born on december 9th, however didn't appear until december 16th. their birth was never seen on screen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eefan (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change for you. ^anemoneI_projectors 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the page is only semi-protected, so you should be able to edit it yourself. Just make sure you leave an edit summary to explain your edit if you want to change something that might be questioned. ^anemoneI_projectors 23:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

No idea who posted the above, but here's another source that may or may not be relevant, but if it is, I think Lucy's is the most relevant article for it. [5] It's about the woman in the birthing video she was shown. AnemoneProjectors 18:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This source might be better. AnemoneProjectors 21:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been added now so for anyone who decides to look here for sources, you can ignore the birthing DVD source :) AnemoneProjectors 22:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Departure?

Not sure how we should handle this one right now. Digital Spy have picked up on it, but they're just quoting the Daily Star, which is hardly the most reliable source going. Frickative 09:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I did originally put something in that quoted Digital Spy but I've taken it out now as I didn't realise they'd got their info from the Daily Star. One of my friends runs an EastEnders website, he's waiting on the BBC to get back to him about this, once they have he'll put it up on his website and we could use that as a source.

However if it is true, I'm thinking that we should leave the classification as being present regular. If you look at the news on DS it says that the actress has been axed, it doesn't say the character is axed. That to me means that they could decide to recast the part. Anyone else agree? --5 albert square (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. Even in the statement by the supposed spokesperson it only mentions Melissa, not Lucy. Given how many times the role has been recast already, it's entirely possible, so yes, unless they release a statement saying Lucy is being written out, I agree. Frickative 10:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've added a hidden comment to reflect this as someone kept changing it earlier and when I asked on their talk page to provide a reference to support that Lucy was going, they didn't reply. I've left it reading Melissa Suffield 2004-10 because at the minute it is looking as if the article is true, as apparently Kris Green has posted on Twitter stating that it is. I suspect that he is waiting on the same email/voicemail from the BBC that my friends waiting on before he confirms anything on Digital Spy. So if it is a recast, that will be Lucy Beale mk 4? God she's had nearly as many head transplants as her dad has had wives! :p --5 albert square (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

http://twitter.com/krisgreen65/status/15035130713 :( AnemoneProjectors 11:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A recast is better than nothing but it won't be the same, Suffield made Lucy who she is. That tweet came through as I was typing a reply :) AnemoneProjectors 11:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, was still kinda hoping it wasn't true :(. I'm thinking though given the amount of teens that have been axed recently ie Lauren, Chelsea, Libby, Ben etc that they will simply recast the part --5 albert square (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Kris Green just said no idea if she's being recast so we'll just have to wait and see. Chelsea's not a teen by the way, she doesn't count :) I don't think of Libby as one either! AnemoneProjectors 11:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked at Chelsea's age, I've no idea why I thought she was a teen! I think it's just because she looks about 18, yeah I'll go with that. Libby is still (just) a teen though she acts as if she's a lot older lol! --5 albert square (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well Chelsea's older than Libby and Libby is I'm guessing 19. Oh, she's 18? Fair enough. How old is Darren? He doesn't act like a teen these days either. Billie's not a teen either but they're treating him as one. Anyway, this is totally off topic! AnemoneProjectors 12:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well that's it confirmed, Melissa's off but no word yet on Lucy. I'm still hoping that they re-cast.--5 albert square (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The EastEnders website has the headline "Lucy's leaving" but the article still only mentions Melissa leaving, not Lucy, so I still don't think this is a good enough source. If they recast, it's likely that Lucy will go away for a while so it doesn't look too strange, but a character break doesn't mean a departure and a return. AnemoneProjectors 12:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It does though really, the title of the article says it all - Lucy is leaving. I think we have to see this as confirmation of the departure of Lucy, even if it is rtemporary. After all, characters like Tanya who 'left' due to maternity leave were classed as departing characters. Surely Lucy is as well (even if they do recast). Bleaney (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's just a headline. Headlines can say anything. It's not confirmation because the article only says Melissa is leaving. AnemoneProjectors 14:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

We have to get our facts right. We can just wait until it is 100% confirmed. The headline does not confirm it. We don't have to add anything about the character leaving until we know for absolute certain. Be patient. This might not be for several months. AnemoneProjectors 14:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I find your argument quite arbitrary. The fact is this - The actress who is plays Lucy is leaving. As you have said previously, if they do recast the part it is highly likely that the character will have a 'break' of at least a few weeks or months before returning. We all doubt that the BBC will replace Lucy straight away (like they do in Austarlian & US soaps), so I think it is now appropriate to list Lucy as a departing character. As I have said previously, characters like Tania and Max who left temporarily were classed as departing characters long before they actually left, even though we knew that they would be returning. I see Lucy as in the same situation. Bleaney (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think AP is in a bit of denial... :) After all, the reference used for Chelsea's departure [6] actually only says that Tiana Benjamin has quit, it says nothing about whether the part has been recast, so perhaps she shouldn't be listed either :) Stephenb (Talk) 15:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not in denial. That source for Chelsea's departure says "Details of Chelsea's exit story have yet to be finalised" which means Chelsea is leaving, not just Tiana Benjamin. Also, the official website says "Chelsea Fox is set to leave Walford later this year". Everyone has been very careful here (with the exception of one headline, which is not good enough as a source as I have already said) to not say that Lucy is leaving, just Suffield. How long was Peter Beale off screen before his last recast? Jake Wood's paternity leave didn't warrent Max being listed as a departing/returning character, but Jo Joyner has been off-screen for a long time, at the time we heard she wouldn't be back until late this year, which was almost a year off-screen. Before we heard she would be gone that long, we didn't list her as a departing character at all. If Lucy's being recast, the character isn't leaving. Suspensions and short-term leave don't count as a character leaving. AnemoneProjectors 15:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Very good point StephenB. In reality, who and who doesn't appear on Wikipedia's List of EastEnders characters whatever their category, is often down to convention rather than absolute certainty. For example, how do we KNOW that characters like Sal Martin ot Reverend Stevens are 'Recurring characters'? They may never appear in EE again? We have no official confirmation that they are. However, convention dictates that they are very likely to appear again, so they are included in the list.

Also, with the characters of Tania and Max, the only reason these characters left EE was because the actors were taking maternity and paternity leave. The actors never left EE, their contracts were not terminated, they were always going to return. So in reality, those charcters should have stayed in the main cast list. However, convention dictated that because the characters were going to disappear for a lengthy period, they would be classed as departing characters, then returning charcters (immediately after they disappeared).

It would be nice if we always had absolute certainty about the comings and goings of cast and characters in EastEnders, but we dont. It is convention that has to fill these gaps sometimes, and convention dictates that as the actress who plays Lucy is leaving, then the Lucy is very likely to leave too (even if it is temporary or short term to allow for a re-cast). If we leave no mention of Lucy's status on List of EastEnders characters, then the page will be constantly edited by well-meaning editors who are not necessarily wrong.Bleaney (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about the recurring characters! I've moved a lot of characters that were listed as recurring to the past list because we didn't know. I don't have a problem with moving Sal and Stevens to past until we hear they are appearing again. But this is a totally different discussion, we are talking about Lucy, not "other stuff". AnemoneProjectors 15:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Also note that we didn't list Masood as departing/returning when Nitin Ganatra took paternity leave, and we didn't list Dot as departing/returning when June Brown left to be in Calendar Girls, and we haven't listed Phil as departing even though Steve McFadden is taking time off to star in pantomime later this year, because it's just short term. Again, not Lucy, but goes to show that short-term departures don't count. AnemoneProjectors 16:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree this is a discussion about Lucy, but the recurring characters prove my point that the List of EastEnders characters has to sometimes rely on convention rather than absolute certainty when listing the status of EE characters. You yourself AP have siad that it is highly likely that the BBC will either finish the character completely or recast Lucy (with a gap). I dont see why we are being so rigid on Lucy's status, when we are more fluid with other characters? Bleaney (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Following Wikipedia policy should be more important than editor-originated convention. The topic at hand should be whether the BBC headline is sufficient enough verification that Lucy is being written out of the series. Given that the EastEnders website sometimes uses actors and characters interchangeably in headlines (example 'You interview the new Mitchell' is clearly about Bergin being interviewed, not Danny Mitchell) I lean towards needing additional confirmation. Frickative 16:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Details of Chelsea's departure" could just be as much an inference (by the writer) as the headline "Lucy's Leaving" - that was the point I was making. But I think it's much more likely that it is an implication in both cases. Stephenb (Talk) 16:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Bleaney, if it's a recast with a gap, we can't list Lucy as departing because a recast isn't a character departure. If it's not a recast then we need a source. Either way, we can't say Lucy is departing because we don't know what is going on. We just have to wait. Stephenb, the BBC source confirms without doubt Chelsea is leaving, not just Tiana. AnemoneProjectors 16:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely, equally, if it IS to be recast, you also need a source. If the character isn't being recast, when should we remove her from the list of characters? The BBC aren't going to announce the part isn't going to be recast, they'll just write the character out. Should we wait until then, or wait further in case they do recast in the end? In which case, we'll have a character in the list played by no-one! And why would they recast this character, and not any other? Basically, she's gone, and you're in denial too  :) :) Stephenb (Talk) 16:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and AP... the official site only says Tiana is leaving: [7], although the headline does say "Cheerio Chelsea" (OK and a bit of inference in the text maybe). I agree, double standards! Stephenb (Talk) 16:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And in the mean time, we will be constantly reverting good faith edits from well-meaning editors over quite an obscure and technical need for clarification from the BBC, which is seemingly not needed for other character listings. This seems full of double standards to me Bleaney (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As another comparison: [8] - nowhere does it explicitly say Jean is leaving. So perhaps she is being "recast"..? Stephenb (Talk) 17:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think its fair to say that the two examples of Chelsea & Jean mean that Lucy not being included in the departing characters list is rediculous. Either that or we have to majorly modify the List of EastEnders characters. Bleaney (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple other sources which state Jean is leaving, and I would hardly call WP:V, one of Wikipedia's core policies, an "obscure and technical need for clarification". Discussion regarding improving the 'List of EastEnders characters' should be held on that talk page. Frickative 17:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec - reply to Stephenb) Yes we don't have a source either way. We need one. If we don't hear about a recast or a definite departure for the character before Melissa's last appearance, then we remove her after her last appearance. Chelsea: the official site says "EastEnders' beautiful beautician Chelsea Fox is set to leave Walford later this year". That's not "a bit of inference". With Melissa, everyone (not just the BBC) is being careful not to say the character is leaving, only the actress. This isn't the case with any of the other announced departures. AnemoneProjectors 17:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Those sources all assume that Jean is leaving from the official BBC announcement (Just like we have done on here). If the rule is that we need to have official BBC confirmation for a character to be included in the Departing list, then Jean doesn't have it and neither does Chelsea. And Frickative, I don't actually want to change radically the format of List of EastEnders characters, I just feel Lucy should be included as a departer on it! Bleaney (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said we need official BBC confirmation. We just need reliable source confirmation. Kris Green from Digital Spy doesn't know, so how can we know? He has a very close working relationship with the EastEnders production team. AnemoneProjectors 17:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] As WP:V states, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Reliable sources have published that Jean is leaving, ergo it is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, even if ultimately (however unlikely that may be) it turns out to be untrue. A single source has so far stated that Lucy is leaving, and its reliability has been called into question. I would ideally like at least one more reliable source to concur before making changes - that way even if it is wrong and she gets recast in the end, at least policy was followed. My interpretation of policy is that it wouldn't have to be absolute official BBC confirmation - an editorial piece would suffice, as long as it's not something obviously dodgy like "An unnamed source told the News of the World..." Frickative 17:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Stephenb can I just point out that the reference you've given there for Jean says at the bottom "No details of the pair's exit have been announced so far, but we'll keep you up-to-date as what is sure to be an epic storyline unfolds." That to me indicates that the BBC are thinking up an exit storyline(s) for Jean and Stacey which means that the characters are leaving. Not disappearing off into the back of beyonder for a few months, leaving for good and the actresses both chose to leave. As I'm sure you can appreciate with Melissa it is totally different, the actress was axed, EastEnders/BBC's choice not hers, as they terminated her contract, with Stacey, Jean and even Chelsea it was the other way around. Given that they've already axed what seems like half the teenagers they may just recast the part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lucy_Beale&action=edit&section=4

The BBC EastEnders site says "Lucy's Leaving", it may well just say that because they've announced it on the EastEnders website. Because they've put it on the soaps part of the website they've called her by the character name instead of the actress name. You may well find that if they'd put the same news on the main BBC website that they would have had the headline "Melissa Suffield Axed"! --5 albert square (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Section break

(Reset indent) The point of my posts about the BBC sites was that the headlines are all about the character ("Lucy's leaving" and "Chelsea Fox is Set to Leave") but you're all taking one to mean that the character is leaving, and the other to say that at the moment we only know the actress is leaving. Yes, there are multiple other citable ones for Jean (yes, I know she's leaving, I'm not claiming she's being recast, don't be silly... (ahem) :) ), but I was specifically using the BBC site as another example where there are double standards as to reliable citability in these cases - that it doesn't always specifically say the character is leaving when, clearly, he/she is. As another example, Peggy is leaving, although the BBC site [9] doesn't explicitly say this, just that Barbara Windsor is leaving (and who's to say they won't recast with her, they've done it before!). Stephenb (Talk) 08:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, we know that Peggy is leaving from other sources and again, a simple headline isn't good enough - they often refer to actors by the characters' names as Frickative already mentioned. The official site's news stories tend to be vague anyway, they often give little background information that other news sites give, and it's often padded out with quotes and character background. The point is, with Melissa Suffield, nobody at all has said Lucy is leaving, they're being very careful about it. AnemoneProjectors 09:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing there aren't other sources for the others, but if we're going to say the BBC site is reliable to say "character X is leaving" in any citations then the headline "Lucy's Leaving" should be enough in this case too, otherwise we shouldn't be relying on it as a reliable source. Nobody has said Lucy is staying either, it's *very* unlikely after 6 years with such a recognisable actress that they'd recast immediately, and to say they might recast at all is surely OR or pure supposition! The only information from a source that we've previously treated as reliable is the BBC site is that "Lucy's Leaving". If you have other information that they might recast, let us all know, but otherwise, IMO, we should go with that. Stephenb (Talk) 11:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A headline isn't enough, and as has been said at least twice already, they have refered to other actors by their character names. The headline is just to grab your attention. The article is what matters! This isn't to do with the BBC, it's to do with all reliable sources. They are all being careful not to say Lucy is leaving. Yes they haven't said Lucy is staying but we can't say she's leaving if she's staying. Not saying she's leaving doesn't mean we're saying she's staying. It's just waiting for confirmation. Which we don't have. Like I said, it could take months. For all we know, Bryan Kirkwood could still be deciding on Lucy's future, so he might not even know if Lucy is leaving. Compare to Rory Williams from Doctor Who. He travelled on the TARDIS, which people thought made him a companion of the Doctor, but we didn't say so on Wikipedia until reliable sources confirmed it. We have to wait. AnemoneProjectors 11:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"The headline is just to grab your attention" is just your opinion. It's saying that Lucy is leaving, and that's the obvious interpretation. Equal to your argument, we can't say Lucy is staying if she's leaving, and we don't have to wait for confirmation, we already have it. "For all we know" - well, exactly - this is all just your supposition about what Brian Kirkwood is thinking or not thinking, we can only go with the evidence we have - and the only evidence is the headline. The only evidence that it might be recast is all in your head! Stephenb (Talk) 14:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Again: "A headline is not good enough! They refer to actors by their character names. Every source is being careful not to say that Lucy is leaving." Is this so hard to understand? Are we saying it wrong? We're not saying Lucy is staying. I know I made suppositions but they are beside the point anyway! We must wait for a source that says Lucy is leaving and not just a headline where the article does not match the headline! As I keep saying, it could take months. Just be paatient. AnemoneProjectors 16:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Again Of course the headline is enough! It's only your interpretation that the headline is not true. There is nothing to suggest otherwise. How patient do we need to be? It says it in the official BBC EastEnders News page! Is that so hard to understand? Am I saying it wrong? By implication, you are saying that Lucy is staying, even though the site says otherwise. We must wait for another source? Why would the BBC make another announcement - they've already made the one they needed to make! They aren't sitting around saying "oh, we need to clarify this for Wikipedia editors", it's been done! Stephenb (Talk) 16:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The headline and the article do not match! Every source is being careful to not say Lucy is not leaving. We aren't saying Lucy is staying, we are saying Suffield is leaving, and are waiting for confirmation on Lucy's fate. It hasn't been clarified at all, it's totally unclear. How patient do we have to be? I have said several times, it could take months before we know for sure. Would you rather publish something that turns out to be wrong or wait until we can be absolutely certain? I'm getting fed up of repeating the same points over and over again. I don't think you're taking any notice. AnemoneProjectors 16:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

We're clearly not making any progress here. I think we should get RFC involved, the question being something like "Is a headline where the article doesn't match the headline a good enough source to say the character is leaving?". AnemoneProjectors 17:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed the conversation isn't going anywhere, but I would assume it will only be up in the air for a few more days at most - I can't imagine none of the soap magazines passing comment on Tuesday, which should give us something more to go on, one way or the other. Frickative 19:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we wait until then, then? I don't read any soap magazines but I can't see them knowing anything that Digital Spy (for example) doesn't. AnemoneProjectors 20:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but I'd be surprised if every single one stuck to mentioning Melissa without commenting on Lucy. They might not know with 100% certainty, but if they report it I think it's fair game that we can cover it. I don't usually buy any, but I flick through the new editions. (I don't read Digital Spy often, because I hate the way most of their articles are pulled from other sources but never link to the original. /tangent) Of course if it gets ignored the way it has been by most of the usual sources so far, we can re-asses. Frickative 20:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see what happens then. (Kris Green from Digital Spy is really good, though, at not pulling articles from other sources.) AnemoneProjectors 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just regarding the point about "not listening" - I am! The point of my argument was to show that for all of the BBC articles, the headline doesn't always match the content of the article but in all cases both the headline and content are correct. It's the most reliable source we have, unlike (say) "News of the World" with an unsourced quote (ahem). Stephenb (Talk) 15:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a News of the World source on this page. AnemoneProjectors 16:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We now know she's being recast. End of discussion :) AnemoneProjectors 10:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)