User talk:AnemoneProjectors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Adoptive relative inclusion in infobox[edit]


I don't know if you've seen tonight's episode, so sorry if this ruins it. Well, with Kim and Denise finding out they're not biological sisters, they're kids (Libby, Chelsea and Pearl) are removed. As well as each other.

However, when characters get married, we always go by their common name and if a marriage occured off screen, we go (until 2012), (off screen) etc, as we maintain it's fiction. For the lenght they've been on, we've believed they are sisters and then it's immediately changed because of a single scene.

Would it really be do bad if adoptive relatives were not noted? I don't mean going stupid by saying adoptive-step-great-aunt or like that. But grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins etc. I doubt Denise and Kim will become strangers and Pearl and Libby have known Denise and Kim as their respective aunts for years. Sometimes, adoptive relatives of a character play more of a role in storylines than biological relatives. Maybe if they were noted in other relatives?

Thanks, Grangehilllover (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen it but I'm guessing it means one of them isn't Emerald's daughter (don't tell me which one, at least keep that as a surprise until I see it, possibly not until Saturday!) I think I'll need to watch it to understand, as I also avoid checking the articles before I've seen the episodes. I'm kind of hoping Kim is the one who was adopted. P.S. don't worry about it as you weren't to know and chances are I'd have seen something about it in the morning anyway. If I hadn't been working tonight, I wouldn't have checked my emails until tomorrow morning after seeing the episode, but because I'm working 4 nights this week I'm unlikely to see Monday's until Saturday (due to not having enough time) then I'll have to try to catch up on the rest over the weekend, though this weekend is pretty action packed for me so I might end up not seeing the episodes within seven days of the broadcast :(
I usually update User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders episodes (2017) with a short episode synopsis as soon as I've seen an epiosde, so if you want to be sure, you could check there to see if I've written anything, and if not, assume I haven't seen it! (Thankfully other people don't update this on my behalf!)
Anyway, wouldn't they be listed as adoptive siblings now? Keep all the same family members, just add "(adoptive)"? As they're just as relevant as they always were? anemoneprojectors 02:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
And the thing is, I think with them not being best buddies with each other, it could just be away for them to talk.
Someone's removed them from each others, so i'll add them back and we should see how it unfolds. In a realistic sense, there could've been no way Emerald could've brought her daughter up without legal rights.
Grangehilllover (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you don't mind me adding to this. In the episode Emerald never explicitly stated that she adopted Denise so there's no proof of a legal adoption.

And about the adoptive extended relatives being included, this should mean that the likes of Bobby Beale should have Linda Clarke listed and Whitney Dean should have Carol, Sonia etc. listed on hers. SamLaws81101 (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

But on the flip side, she might have. She might have not. We actually have no clue.
And with adoptive relatives, I don't mean list every single person. Just ones where a relationship was established. So like, Whitney, she is/was more of a friend to Bianca's cousins Lauren and Lucy etc. However, it wasn't long ago, at Peggy's funeral, she said "it reminded me of my Nana Pat". I think it should really depend on the closeness and interaction, like we do anyway. Maybe if they were listed in "other relatives" or other parameters were devised.
Grangehilllover (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh well, so much for "don't tell me which one, at least keep that as a surprise until I see it, possibly not until Saturday!" Anyway I don't think we should change our rule on adoptive relatives in the infobox, but we could make a single exception to whichever one of Emerald's daughters she adopted if we have consensus to do so. Discussion should really be on the character's talk page, not on the user talk page of someone who didn't really want spoilers. anemoneprojectors 00:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
P.S Don't worry about it really. I would have found out anyway. By watching. I'll just pretend to be surprised :-) I almost watched it before I went to work but I ran out of time. If only I had woken up earlier! anemoneprojectors 00:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Oops! I'm sure it was all accidental In that case, should I start a conversation on Denise, Kim and/or 2017 characters for others? Sorry if I'm annying you doing this :)
Grangehilllover (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't you, so don't worry. I would take it up on Denise's talk page. But if there's no proof of a legal adoption then we probably can't list anyone as adoptive. I need to watch the episode! Maybe I'll find time today. anemoneprojectors 09:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The conversation is now here: Talk:Denise Fox#Including Emerald, Kim etc. on Denise's page.
Grangehilllover (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Steve Hewlett and Steve Hewlett (ventriloquist)[edit]

As you were involved in Steve Hewlett (ventriloquist) you may be interested in Talk:Steve_Hewlett_(journalist)#Requested_move_7_February_2017 (and probably won't have either of the pages concerned on your watchlist). PamD 22:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 10 years ago![edit]

Wikipedia Administrator.svg Wishing AnemoneProjectors a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

EE: Roxy's death[edit]

THIS is what they said at the inquest.

“We have heard from Mr. Wright, the pathologist that Roxane Mitchell had cocaine in her body, but not at levels which would have proved fatal. Whilst I have no doubt that it contributed to her death, the prima facia cause of Roxanne Mitchell’s death was the cardiac arrest which RESULTED IN HER DROWNING.

So why can't we put her cause of death as also drowning in the infobox on the EastEnders/List of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders page? This was at the inquest. The argument is that they said if drowning played a part in her death, it would have been noted. Oh look, guess what they said at the end of the sentence. Honestly, its like people like to revert everything I do and accuse me of vandalism. Arjoccolenty (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we should because that's what was said at the inques - we should say she drowned following a cardiac arrest caused by cold shock response. anemoneprojectors 03:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


Hi AP, hope you're well! Could you possibly move the userpage User:Soaper1234/Lofty to Ben "Lofty" Chiltern please? Thanks, Soaper1234 (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that should be Lofty Chiltern, as Lofty is his WP:COMMONAME after all. - JuneGloom07 Talk 18:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with that also. Soaper1234 (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I can, but I'm not well at all. anemoneprojectors 10:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh no! Hope you're feeling better soon! Thanks for your help :) Soaper1234 (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Remove protection?[edit]

Hey. Could you remove the semi-protection from User:JuneGloom07/Eye, so I can move it, please? - JuneGloom07 Talk 18:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Done! anemoneprojectors 18:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! - JuneGloom07 Talk 19:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)