Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WT:WPEE

Archive | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5
Articles | Article assessment
Project log
To do list
Recent changes in categories:
EastEnders | Books | Cast members | Characters | Directors | Families | Images | Lists | Locations | People | Producers | Spin-offs | Storylines | Stubs | Writers

Contents 1 Archived old talk page 2 EastEnders 3 EastEnders helpdesk 4 Main Article characters section 5 Good article nominations 6 Adoptive family in family sections? 7 "Lou Beale is a character in EastEnders"

[edit] Archived old talk page

Because it got to 47KB. The archive can be found here.

[edit] EastEnders

The article EastEnders is a featured article candidate. Again. See here.

[edit] EastEnders helpdesk

I am going to write to the EastEnders helpdesk to get some questions answered to aid the project; here they boast that that they can answer almost any question - so I want to know which questions you would like me to include?

The ones I have so far are:

1. Can you send me a list of every middle name you have?
2. What are Winston, Tracy, Amy, Lydia, "Big" Ron, Ray and Sid's surnames?
3. Who played Chris, Helen and Peter Pappas, Kate Chole, Eleanor Trueman, Sean Andrews, Arjun Kapoor, Cindy Williams, Eamonn Flaherty Jr., Stan Dougan, Stephanie Watson, Jasmine O'Brien, Benny Heller, Lauren Whiting, Carol Jenkins, Jessie Williams, Flo Medeemey, Nigel Dean and Adam Steadman?

I don't have high hopes, but it's worth a try! Feel free to add to the list! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Good luck! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Clint's last name would be useful too, and would give us Rosie Miller's maiden name. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main Article characters section

I notice that the character section from the main article is being cited as a reason why people are against it becoming a featured article. I agree that it is reading a bit like a list. It might simply be necessary to say that the cast turn over of characters in EE is quite high (particularly in recent years), and give a few yearly numbers of exits/introductions.

The stuff on family and clans is fine but I was thinking we should attempt to rewrite the rest of this section including more on character archetypes that have basically just been reused throughout EE's history. Like battleaxe/Matriarch, Bitch, tearaways, heartthrob, hopeless causes, victims, losers, long suffering women, hardman, survivors, petty criminals, villians and middleclass misfits/outsiders and controversial characters etc.

We should also perhaps say that EE has always tried to appeal to a broad range of people, and have always included ethnic and social minorities with varying degrees of success.

If everyone agrees with this then I dont mind having a go at rewriting it, so let me know what your thoughts are.Gungadin 20:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I'm gonna cry when I lose all my wonderful refereces in the list, though I agree the list is too much! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Go on, make Trampikey cry! The section has needed improving for a while, so go ahead. The referenced list was a nightmare for editing if you wanted to move names around, as I did once! So good riddence to it!! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nominations

I have nominated Phil Mitchell and Pete Beale as Good Articles, are there any more you think I should nominate? I was thinking of nominating History of EastEnders - what do you think? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, can't do any harm Gungadin 15:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what's the worst that can happen? If it doesn't pass, we'll be given some ways to improve it. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adoptive family in family sections?

I don't think we should have adoptive family in the character articles' family sections, as we don't have step family, or uncles, aunts etc. who aren't blood related... so I don't think we should have adoptive family either, as they're not blood related... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's like saying we shouldn't include husbands and wives because they arent blood related. If someone has been adopted then they legally belong to the person who adopted them and they also take on the family name, so it's different from distant step relatives. Also if they are taken off they will continuously be re-added by users who dont know of the policy and it's already bad enough with people re-adding step-relatives and past husbands and wives. So for this reason I dont think its worth it. Gungadin 18:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What Gungadin said. A silly suggestion. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree. There's no need to be bitchy, Anemone! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. I think we should include everyone from EastEnders in everyone else's family sections because they're all related anyway. If that's not mentioned in the EastEnders article, it should be! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 00:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The Ferreiras weren't related to anyone else... neither were the Kapoors... or the Taverniers... or Dr May and Rob the wanker... Liam Butcher is related to everyone though! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The Truemans aren't related to anyone. And the Foxes, unless Denise and Kevin get married. If Dawn ever gives birth then that'll link May and Rob to the Millers, but then again the Millers aren't related to anyone else either... but seriously, I created a family tree linking everyone I could... it has all the Slaters, Mitchells, Beales, Fowlers, Raymonds, Hills, Butchers, Jacksons, Brannings, Wickses, Wattses... 166 people and there's several missing, and I didn't link anyone by casual relationships, only blood relatives, adoptions and marriages... anyway my point is that EastEnders is very incestuous and it's worth mentioning. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 10:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Lou Beale is a character in EastEnders"

Is incorrect grammar. I say we should try and get this ridiculous rule changed, it doesn't make sense to say that a character who hasn't appeared for 19 years (and is dead!) is a character in EastEnders... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The incorrect grammar is saying he "was", the episodes still very much exist, as I see on UKTV Gold. If you can provide citation the episodes no longer exist though.. also see WP:WAF. Matthew 21:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The character no longer appears in the current continuity of the show, so is no longer in EastEnders, she is in EastEnders from the past, but as EastEnders is a continuous show, and continues to produce new episodes, she does not appear in the current show, and therefore is not a character in EastEnders, she's a character from EastEnders, so saying she was in is acceptable grammar as well. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Not appearing in the latest episodes does not mean a character does not star in episodes any more, ever wondered why on DVDs for movies, etc, it says starring, not starred? I'll let you figure it out.. Matthew 22:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The character does not appear in the current continuity, so saying that she is a character in the show is misleading, as if she appears from beyond the grave. The sentence "Lou Beale is a character in the popular BBC soap opera EastEnders, who appeared from the show's inception on 19 February 1985 until the character's death on 26 July 1988." does not make sense, as she is no longer in the show. We have never had a problem before with the way our 500+ articles are worded, as it is grammatically correct! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and it makes perfect sense to me. Matthew 22:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about a continuous series, not a film, she is no longer in the show. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes the character is, the episodes exist, repeats air, thus the character is. Matthew 22:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is is, all works of fiction ARE present-tense..Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 22:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But in a work of fiction that has been going for 22 years - the whole 22 years cannot be the present, especially as it runs in real time, unlike a one-off show (for example) without a specified time setting. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Autons haven't appeared in any new stories of Doctor Who since 2005, "were" they an enemy in Doctor Who, regardless that the episodes still exist? Matthew 22:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they were, as they do not appear in the serial anymore. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, Dr. Who isn't the best example to use, as there have been two distinct incarnations of it, and it doesn't follow a set time pattern, as EastEnders does. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Trampikey on this, I think because EastEnders is set in real time, it should be considered to be more like news events where the past is the past, rather than episodes of Lost or Desperate Housewives. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 10:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)