Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders

Citing episodes/List of episodes

I was wondering if it would be a good idea to make a template for citing EastEnders episodes, based on the existing {{Cite episode}}. All it would need would be the episode "name" (something like "EastEnders 31/08/2010" -- I think that's how they are officially named), the last part of the url from the BBC Programmes site, which could be a field called "code" or something like that, and the broadcast date, with optional fields for the writer, director and executive producer. I did a test version in my userspace User:AnemoneProjectors/Template:Cite EastEnders episode. What do people think? I'm actually working on a... LIST OF EPISODES. Yes, this is a mad thing to do, but I think it would be really good, so having a shorter way to cite would be quite helpful, and BBC Programmes is used all the time for the "other" characters. AnemoneProjectors 19:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't even begin to tell you how impressed I am by the 'list of episodes' idea. Doing the Holby City ones took me six months and most of my sanity, and EastEnders has eight times as many episodes! The 2010 list is looking really fab. Just shout if there's anything you'd like a hand with :) Re: the titles - doesn't the BBC just separate the episodes by airdate? I think the title column might possibly be superfluous, but not sure. What would an EastEnders episode template do that cite episode doesn't? Frickative 13:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, striking the last part of my reply because you already said what it would do, lol. I'm not sure that saving the few seconds it takes to fill in parameters with 'EastEnders, BBC, BBC One' is enough to require a separate template when 'cite episode' has the same basic functionality. How do you envision using it in the episode lists? Frickative 13:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I just thought it might be easier but I guess you're right. I won't make a new template. I was gonna use it to source the writers and directors. The BBC does just separate them by airdate, so I don't think they have actual titles. The only ones that do are "EastEnders Live" and "Pretty Baby...." but I could just link the episode number to the articles (and the two-handers) instead of the titles. The only problem is the {{Episode list}} template requires a title. If I don't include that column, it's all messed up. But no, they're not properly titled because when an episode goes out on a date it wasn't originally scheduled for, the "title" is still the airdate, or when two episodes are combined into one, the same thing. AnemoneProjectors 16:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at my 2010 list of episodes again. I've got rid of the title for Jan and Feb, but as "EastEnders Live" has a title, I think we should somehow include it. It's really difficult! AnemoneProjectors 19:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, it's looking very neat now :D It's a shame to have the line break for "Live" but I can't think of any better way of including it, so I think that's the best way of doing it. Btw, are you planning on making the tables sortable? I think these are going to be a great set of articles :) Frickative 20:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec cos I took too long to save) Also, I thought it best not to include episode synopses, do you agree? And am I right to separate by month or should I remove the sections (when I'm finished) and just replicate the table headers? Any other improvements I can do?

(reply, not ec) Yes I thought I could make it sortable after I just looked at the Holby ones. Thing is the main Holby list is good sortable but doesn't work in the series articles because of the synopses! I put two versions of Live in the table to see which one looked best. But just linking to the article misses out its name. I could use "AltTitle" as I'm using "RTitle" for the dates column so that it's the second column (better there I think in this case) but I'd have to un-centre the column to do that. I'm worried when I go back that I'll miss out episodes, but a while back I did a numbered list of all episodes to date (which I haven't kept up to date) which I got from TV.com so hopefully none will be missed. I won't be able to get ratings before 1999 or whatever year BARB goes back to. And I'll have to start using other sites (not BBC Programmes) to get the credits. AnemoneProjectors 20:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Forget what I said about AltTitle, it only works with Title, not RTitle. AnemoneProjectors 20:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I'd forgotten about that annoying synopsis/sortable bug. I think I'd be inclined to leave out episode summaries and make the tables sortable, and then perhaps if you wanted to ultimately model it after season/series articles, you could add a few paragraphs of prose summarising the main storylines from the year as a whole. It's a pity the BARB and BBC Programmes only go so far back. I heard recently that the BBC are in the process of adding credit information for back episodes, but I've been waiting on that for Holby for nearly two years so I'm not holding my breath lol. Frickative 20:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooh the storyline summaries sounds like a good idea, but we couldn't really name the articles "EastEnders (series 25)" because they're not actual series. I think as it's sortable I should get rid of the monthly sections... I guess IMDb is going to be the best source for older episodes. AnemoneProjectors 21:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: the title, I know, but I was thinking that if you wanted to you could still use the season/series model and have info on the cast and crew that came and went over the year, awards, critical commentary on the years' storylines etc. Disregard totally if you prefer straight lists, I've just been working so much on an FL nom this fortnight I have season articles on the brain! Sorry, forgot to comment on the monthly sections before, but I actually really like them - I think it makes navigation a lot easier given that there are 200 odd episodes a year. Frickative 21:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a yearly summary of EastEnders would be nice though we do have History of EastEnders which talks about it per decade, so I think we should keep the episodes just a straight list. I do like the idea of a combined table for the whole year so it's all sortable, you can see who wrote what episodes and which were the highest rated episodes for the whole year. I could still break it up though (watchlist my draft and I'll combine Jan and Feb to show you). AnemoneProjectors 21:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Damn I won't be able to do that either because it breaks the sorting!!! AnemoneProjectors 21:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Argh, that's a pity! I guess you should just go for combining the whole year. If it seems like too much in the end it can always be split up again later. And I'd forgotten History of EastEnders existed, never mind :) Frickative 21:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think three-month sections could be manageable but maybe a bit silly, but the whole year is probably going to be too much. I suppose I should use the {{sortname}} template for all the people! AnemoneProjectors 21:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(undent) This is annoying! How do I use the sortname template when there are two writers for one episode? lol AnemoneProjectors 21:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ermmm, I think with Holby I just made it sort for the one whose surname came first alphabetically, though that probably wasn't a very elegant solution lol. The dates need {{dts}}, too - I wish the sortable tables were more intuitive. Btw, I'm after something a bit repetitive to work on atm, would I be treading on your toes if I started knocking one up for 2009 or earlier? Just checking, I'd rather be a help than a hindrance. Frickative 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I sorted on the first name of the two, rather than the first alphabetically. Actually, I put them separately in two sortname templates and it sorted on the first name of the two, who is the one who was credited first. I realised I needed {{dts}} instead of {{startdate}}. Sure you can work on 2009 if you want. :-) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006m86d/episodes/2009 <- also I was using the five.tv pages to make sure the episode numbers add up but I don't think that goes back very far. What do we do if we complete all 25 years and the episode numbers are wrong?! AnemoneProjectors 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, that happened to me with Holby. I finally finished the whole thing, then they aired the 500th episode and I realised the count is off by one episode. Damned if I can figure out where ¬_¬ I guess we should just hope for the best! Frickative 23:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well we know that EastEnders Live was episode number whatever, I hope it works out but we can cross that bridge when we reach it. Hmm it's taking longer to add the names now I've done it sortable cos I have to type a |, I can't just copy and paste the name! AnemoneProjectors 23:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

List of deceased EastEnders characters

Notifying the project that List of deceased EastEnders characters has been created and is currently at AFD. Feel free to comment. AnemoneProjectors 18:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

lol thanks for the comments everyone. It got speedied cos it was created by a sockpuppet. But we don't want a list of character deaths anyway, do we? That's why it's a project subpage. AnemoneProjectors 11:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Phil Mitchell's Occupation Date(s)

Hi, I am appealing to anyone who know's the occupation dates of Phil Mitchell, as it stands at present his occ dates are as follows, * Barman (c. 1990s–2000s, 2005–10) *Mechanic (c. 1990s–2010) *Businessman (c. 1990s–2009) *Pub landlord (c. 1990s), well if somebody knows precisely when he was in these occupation's please feel free to correct them. --Dweeby123 (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know but you should probably ask on Talk:Phil Mitchell because it'll be seen by more people, and it affects one specific article, rather than the EastEnders project. AnemoneProjectors 10:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bianca Jackson 2nd GAR

The article is being reviewed again. Anyone willing to take a look? It seems even more issues have come up than the first time! If it fails, please don't nominate it a third time until everything from both GARs has been addressed! AnemoneProjectors 17:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree it shouldnt have been nommed again in the first place. What's irritating is that the different reviewers have requested different things and arent some a little contradictory? I deffo dont agree that we should be using free images of Patsy for Bianca; the images I would keep are the Bianca now and Bianca then images and maybe the wedding one. Thre others can go.GunGagdin^Moan 17:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond to the suggestion that because it's long, it must be full of fancruft. Uh... Anyways, I put way too much time into it the first time round, I'm afraid I'm not going to be very available for the second nom. Good luck to anyone who takes it on, though! Frickative 19:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done a few of the things but I honestly think the reviewer is being far too picky and I don't think I want to do anything else (even where they weren't being picky). AnemoneProjectors 20:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I also dont have a lot of time to put into this this week, and to be honest, I think the article is in good article shape already and I dont think all the things being requested are necessary.GunGagdin^Moan 21:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way I do think GA standards have been raised recently, but I'm sure some people think it's FAR. I'm considering replying to User talk:CountdownCrispy#Good article mentor request about the fancruft though. "Oh it's very long, it must be fancruft". What complete nonsense that is! AnemoneProjectors 21:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

EastEnders articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the EastEnders articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Storylines (re Whitney Dean)

I was going to write this on Whitney Dean's talk page but figured it related to everything... anyway, the reason the storylines were so long is because it's sometimes easier to update storylines as they happen and then remove what isn't important later, because we don't know what is and what isn't important at the time. Plus it's hard to keep it so brief when people update articles after each episode. It might be better to do it weekly but we can't stop people updating. I sometimes think we should add hidden comments like <!-- plot condensed to here --> to make it easier for future condensing.

I also notice that Whitney's appearances in E20 was removed. Do we not think appearances in spin-offs are worth mentioning? Should I stop adding them? AnemoneProjectors 20:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to remove the "Other appearances" section - I got an edit conflict when I was cutting down the storylines and must have missed it out copy/pasting into the top box, oops. I've restored it, though it does seem a bit trivial - if it was a regular EastEnders event then Whitney buying a pair of dodgy trainers wouldn't be worth mentioning. Wrt storylines, if that's the system that works best for you then all to the good, I've no problem with it - it just seems that the removing of unimportant bits hadn't happened for a very long time, so it was a bit of a surprise to find the plot section nearly five times longer than when it got to GA. The hidden comment suggestion seems like a very good idea to me :) Frickative 21:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh fair enough. Well I know it was only a minor appearance... but she was in Last Tango too, so if I ever get around to watching it again...... I try to be as brief as I can when I update, but nobody ever gets around to condensing regularly. When condensing a second time, is it ok for the storylines section to be a lot longer, or is it sometimes necessary to re-consense what was already condensed? AnemoneProjectors 21:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

seems a little pointless to add info that we know will be removed. I think a weekly or fortnightly update is more practical in theory, but I realise that this cant be controlled on wiki as users update all the time anyway, so if you have a system that works for you AP, then that's grand by me. I dont think there needs to be a rule on condensing. What may seem like an adequate amount of info at one time can easily seem like too much info at a later date.GunGagdin^Moan 21:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave articles for a week or so. I should probably stop because I never used to but I tend to make notes while I watch the episodes so nothing is forgotten. There are several characters who haven't been updated for some time. I worry that if they don't get updated fairly quickly, important updates will be forgotten. I should probably worry about it less. If I see someone updating I will always cleanup after them or add what they missed, so perhaps I should just leave my own updates for a while and just concentrate on others', then do my own maybe at the weekends or something. AnemoneProjectors 21:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Vanessa Gold

Hello everybody. Just dropped by to mention Vanessa Gold. I see she has a lot of text on her section, so I would agree that she has a separate article? She has been in for five months. What do you think? Let me know and I will create it. Thanks --GSorbyDesroid - (Contribs!) 20:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. My concern is that we only have five sources. If some kind of a reception section can be created, I would definitely support it. AnemoneProjectors 21:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what about this? Now would you support it? --GSorbyDesroid - (Contribs!) 22:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say that reception info belongs more in development. You could mention Lucker's "Best Newcomer" nomination at the Inside Soap awards though. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the section you added there is more development than reception. The award nomination is reception though. I meant more along the lines of reception from TV critics. AnemoneProjectors 22:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I am really not good at wording, could one of you perhaps edit that page then and add info? --GSorbyDesroid - (Contribs!) 22:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox soap character 2 nominated for merging

Are we happy for this to be merged? I suppose I am, as long as nothing is lost. AnemoneProjectors 22:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And as long as the more compact layout we use is put in place in the other template. Actually, I'd support merging Template:Infobox soap character to Template:Infobox soap character 2. AnemoneProjectors 22:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it actually change anything? Like the character relationships? Do we still get mother, father, brother, sister, step-whatever, family? ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 08:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

For now we will, people are only supporting if nothing is lost, so the template will end up with "parents" as well as "mother" and "father", for example. But the few people who have opposed seem to not want the fields in the other infobox - as it's fully protected, they would be "trapped". But I would be totally opposed to combining 'sons', 'daughters', 'step sons', 'step daughters', 'adoptive sons', 'adoptive daughters' all into 'children', for example, as we'd end up having to use brackets. Look at Danielle Jones (EastEnders) for example - she has parents and adoptive parents, half siblings and adoptive siblings. I might actually oppose the merge. AnemoneProjectors 11:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There, I have opposed. AnemoneProjectors 11:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Opposed as well. I am actually a little miffed at the suggestion that somehow the infobox #2 is more amatuerish. I mean, infobox #1 has "relationships" as a parameter (!!!!), "other relatives", first appearance. I find it to be far more reader's digest-like. I mean "relationships"!!!! I think the infobox #2 could stand to loose a few parameters but I think it is a more polished and more pertinent template. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 12:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey ho

Just popped in to say hi, and hopefully will be able to work on some articles towards the end of the year.

Hope everyone is well. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 10:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Haven't seen you for ages! Maybe we can get your family article up to scratch. AnemoneProjectors 11:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good idea.... still very busy for the moment alas, but things will quiten down significantly in a month. So that can allow a bit of time for us to gather resources (?), get our heads around it all again, and then delve into a bit of heightened activity before Xmas. Is Fricative still about/interested. It would be good to get it done - I think we 3 were really geting a good handled on it when real life called me away. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 08:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, good to see you around! I'm still here and still interested, it would be great to get that one finished :) Frickative 14:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Images in lists again

List of EastEnders characters (2006) just had all its images orphaned per WP:NFLISTS. It looks like we may end up losing every image in every list, where previously we were allowed to keep a small number of them. I reverted the removal but commented them out so I know the file names and can restore them in future if necessary. AnemoneProjectors 17:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, is this a new rule? |:C --GSorbyDesroid - (Contribs!) 17:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. Our articles have been targetted before regarding this rule, but somehow we were allowed to have 5 or 6 images on a page. AnemoneProjectors 17:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

So what's happening now? Just wait 'till all this passes? --GSorbyDesroid - (Contribs!) 17:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest don't do anything and see what happens. AnemoneProjectors 17:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm the one who removed the images, and have done a few other list articles in this series as well. As AnemoneProjector noted, there's a WP:NFLISTS violation. Per character non-free images are generally not supported. Of particular concern is that in these lists articles there are very few references, and notability of these characters outside of in-universe references is suspect. It's not necessary to display a character if they are not notable enough to warrant their own article. If a cast photograph (not a user created montage) can be located for each season, that's certainly acceptable at the top of the article. But per character images are not. Pumping in eastenders cast into Google images produces a number of potentially viable images for this purpose, such as this image. Another alternative is finding free images of the actors that portrayed these characters, as their on-screen visual appearance would not be significantly different than their real world appearance. See Characters of Friends for an example of this type of usage. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with images of multiple cast members is that not all of them will have been introduced in the same year, so we would have people in a photo who don't belong in a certain list. EastEnders doesn't have seasons (or series as we call them in the UK), and we have split the lists by year for characters introduced in that year. A cast photograph taken now would include characters who joined in various years from 1985 to today. The only year it would be possible to have no overlap would be 1985. As for free images of actors, these are very hard to come across in the United Kingdom - in the States is seems very common but here it just very rarely happens. Especially for the actors portraying characters who don't have their own articles. Anyway, my only request is that instead of removing the photos, you just comment them out so I can easily restore if we ever manage to split any of them off. AnemoneProjectors 19:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Is there a particular law in the UK governing rights of images of people in public places? Regardless, there is a list right here on this project of a number of free images of these actors at Wikipedia:WikiProject_EastEnders/Free-use_images. That seems to prove that free images are obtainable. I understand the issue with cast photos, but I don't think that's an overriding reason to permit mass use of non-free images, most especially when so few characters have out of universe references. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, no law, they just seem harder to get. I don't know why. Shows like Lost and Glee have conferences and things where people can go to meet the casts, but we don't have that here. We could consider using some of the free images for the actors whose characters don't have individual articles but I would be against using them in infoboxes, because the infobox is for the character, plus a recent IFD ended with the consensus that a free image of an actor is not the same as an image of a character. By the way, more recent lists have many more out-of-universe references, but we created the lists to deal with articles that were likely to be nominated for deletion. And I certainly didn't mean that the issue with cast photos is an excuse for using non-free images. AnemoneProjectors 20:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, a photo like the one here could be used in the 1985 list but all the actors/characters in that photo have separate articles. Anyway, I'm not trying to make excuses, I'm just saying :-) AnemoneProjectors 20:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If I may say, what exactly heppened to the 5, 6 images per list rule? Cos as far as I remember the lists did get attacked about this once before, am I right? :) --GSorbyDesroid - (Contribs!) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• There isn't a 5-6 per list rule. It's never existed, and wouldn't. The issue is the type of use. These characters are not significant enough to have articles of their own, and these lists are largely empty of references. Within that context, having per character images doesn't make sense. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

When this was brought up before a few years ago, we were allowed to keep a small number of the images in the lists, whereas before we had one for every character. I don't know where this discussion happened, as I cannot find it. By the way, EastEnders episodes in Ireland isn't technically a list. AnemoneProjectors 21:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I went looking for the archive of the prior discussion here as well, and could not find it. As to the Ireland article not being list; semantics. The reality is that the Flaherty family is outlined in character list form. Regardless, the same issues apply to episode lists as they do to character lists. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

TBH, I really don't see this as much of an issue. IMO, having images only for some of the characters made the page a little unsymetrical (in a vertical sense!) - which isn't visually appealing. But if the characters don't warrant their own pages then they probably don't warrant their own images - especially in the context of the EE Wiki Project, which does, if possible, have separate pages (including for some characters that I don't think warrant it - but that's another story and down to personal inclination rather than violation of rules :) ). My only objection to this is that the changes were just made without, to my knowledge, giving a heads up. I know WP is huge, and there are many defunct projects about, but the EE Wiki Project is blessed to ave 2 very commited and prolific members who can usually give immediate feedback. I think a brief "These images are really a violation of regulation and I propose to remove them" would have been courteous. Often times it is difficult to determine if someone isn't just being overly malicious with the rules, rather than raising a legitimate point as I believe does relate to these pages. That's all. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 00:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Junipers Liege, thank you, thank you. To explain the thank you a bit; I first came to edit an EastEnders article by way of List of EastEnders characters (2006) appearing on Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files, a report I routinely patrol. When I conduct such removals, I often look to see if there's been recent discussion on the talk page of the article regarding the overuse issue. But, I don't look at which project(s) have tagged the article as being within their purview. There's several reasons for this. First, several projects are simply dead. The tags on the articles have been there for years, but the project itself has long since stopped operating. Second, some projects have developed editing guidelines that contradict community wide accepted norms. Third, many projects feel a strong sense of ownership towards articles within their purview. This makes sense; they are the editors who most contribute to these articles. So what happens is the issue is raised to the project, usually everyone in the project objects, and we're left with a 'consensus' to leave the images in, despite our policies and guidelines on the issue. This usually happens after long, exhaustive debate which repeats the same ground that's been debated in other places, with the same repeated arguments. It's cumbersome, and makes it impossible to get articles in compliance with our WP:NFC guideline. It's not that I think I'm right and the project is wrong. It's that the project doesn't own the article in question, the NFC guideline supersedes any local project guideline, and if there's a debate it shouldn't be held at the project level. Frankly, this is the first project I've encountered which has treated the issue civilly, logically, and without expressing any sense of ownership. I'm quite impressed. Therefore, thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand.... and I understand also about the issue with Wiki Projects.... many are dead and others do have an entitlement attitude, so I can see why you would not have thought to check with the relative project, as for every project that may be helpful, you'll get 2 or 3 that are dead or worse. As I say, I personally don't have a problem with the removal of the images from the page/s in question. It is difficult enough to justify them on full-blown article pages! But generally speaking, the EastEnders Wikiproject is very pre-ocupied with doing things according to WP guidelines. I have learnt that. It has been, to my understanding, partly in response to the attitude held by some that articles on TV programmes, especially soaps, are not what WP is about, and so EE articles have come under a lot of fire. The way this was delt with was to change the articles so that they met guidelines. But I can speak for myself and others here, that we are very aware of making sure article follow policy. So, if you do come across problems, please don't hesitate to bring it to the notice of this page. You shouldn't (hopefully) get a bad response. We're all here to work together after all and all that! ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 14:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Kat Slater

In addition to working on the families page, I would really like to see this get up to scratch - GA grade. If we could start searching for some sources over the next month or so and began to revamp the article towards the end of November, I think that is a doable goal.

Also, one thing I would REALLY like to do, is revisit the "naming" of characters on Wiki. If we could have a good discussion on that, setting out WP policy, because I really dislike the idea of Kat "Moon" and Sharon "Rickman" (the latter especially). ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 01:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

User:AcidBrights already did some fantastic work on Kat's article in the week before she returned. There's no reason why it couldn't be nominated for GA now - well, after the reception section is expanded and the popular culture section is sourced. An article doesn't have to be huge to be GA. I nominated Fatboy (EastEnders) the other day. In fact, Bianca Jackson's GA failed recently and one reason was that it was deemed to be inappropriately long.

As for page titles, I think that should be started under a new heading, so we can all have a proper debate about it. Many articles may be affected, including Dot Branning, Pat Evans, Kat Moon, Denise Johnson, Sharon Rickman, Lynne Hobbs, Sonia Fowler, Melanie Owen, Honey Mitchell, Kate Mitchell, Kathy Mitchell, Little Mo Mitchell, Irene Raymond, Yolande Trueman, Debbie Bates, Cindy Beale, Natalie Evans, Clare Bates, Lisa Fowler and Ruth Fowler. Of course, some won't need to be moved, but it needs discussing and has never been. We've always said it should be. But it needs its own discussion, away from discussing the improvement of Kat Moon. And it'll need a long discussion, not just three people going "yep" and then moving the pages. AnemoneProjectors 01:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was reading the Kat article and thought it was good - but noted that it still only had C or start class, so I just assumed that there was some glaring omission that needed fixing. Well, perhaps we can think about puting it up for review. I am try and do a few source searches over the next week. Perhaps we can tentively say that "we" (as the project) will submit the article for nomination at the beginning of November, and perhaps ask members fix it up where they see it appropriate? (Re the Bianca Jackson article. Had a look and to me, at least, it seems there are a number of other issues affecting that article, rather than just length. I don't think it is near a good quality yet - but that is my opinion). Agree about the names thing. If you want, I can take the lead in organising discussion on that (leaving messages at people's talk pages who edit EE articles and/were former members etc) over the next few months. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 01:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The glaring omission was that the class hadn't been updated - the project banner still said it was in need of real-world information. Changed to B-class now! Maybe it should be C, not sure. Either way, there's still work to be done. Yes Bianca's article did have other issues. It also had a picky reviewer. So you need to be prepared for that! Maybe GA standards have increased, but I've never had more than a few minor changes when I've had GAs. AnemoneProjectors 01:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm totally on board for lending a hand with the Kat article. AcidBrights has done a great job with it lately. I think apart from reception and popular culture, the pre-2010 development needs a fair bit of work, as the main focus atm is her departure. Findarticles.com seems to have had some major problems recently, but there are still 19 pages of Kat-related articles archived dating back to 2000, which is as good a place to start as any. I'll trawl through over the weekend and drop anything promising off at the article talkpage. Frickative 03:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Great Frickative. I'll have a look through highbeam and begin lending a hand over the next few weeks. It just seems to need some targeted love! The reintroduction section is fine - and in fact is probably too long in the context of her history. However, imo I think all the oou development stuff is great, but the storyline section regarding her 2010 return needs considerable triming. She's only been back a few weeks and already it almost equals all her other storylines from 2000-05!!! We should be able to expand upon the development and casting sections. I'll put my thoughts down on the character talk page though. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 07:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, just added a proposed structure to the article on the talk page. It's just MY thoughts.... don't want anyone to think I'm trying to be dictatorial; but for me, I cannot do these character article pages unless I have the structure done first. Even the page on Dennis Rickman, which is not completed, actually has a fully outlined structure done!!! (As do my pages that I propose to rework - Den, Sharon, Dennis, Suzy Branning). So I like to do this first. Please give thoughts and criticisms. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 08:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A warning!

Ok - my last new section for the week I promise. But I thought I would "warn" everyone (jovially) that I do intend on taking the Chrissie Watts article to FAR before the end of the year - I know there was tremendous hassle over Pauline's, and it may turn out to be as bad or worse for this article, but I'm game for the challenge. I plan to submit the article I did on She for FAR first - hopefully earning some kudos and so I can't just be dismissed as some soapy fan!!!! I believe that the She article does meet FAR standards so am really hopefully to get it through. I suppose my experience with that will ultimately determine if I have the fortitude to proceed with the Chrissie Watts article. But I would just like to ask, and please be brutally honest, whether you think it will or won't be successful and why. I plan to rewrite the Reception section and do some tweaking to the Personality section (where there is some repetition in character development) before going to FAR, but there should not be any drastic changes to the article as it stands. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 08:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)