Talk:EastEnders/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

"The influx of new characters is now nearing the end"

How do we know it's ever going to end? We thought it would stop months ago, but they kept adding more. Can this be re-written? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Episode count

I think we need a source for the episode count because it could so easily go wrong. Someone's changed it today and I don't know if they were correcting a mistake or vandalising. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This says that the 13-02-07 episode was number 1164, making yesterday's (08-05-07) episode (46 episodes later) number 1210... but this depends on whether they started counting again at one point, and is contradicted by this (Ian's 2000 episodes) and IMDb, which lists 2747 episodes on its (incomplete) list. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Apparently when Eastnders started going 3 nights a week in 1994, the episode count was reset to 1 again. The last twice weekly episode (episode 952) went out on Thurs 7 April, and the following monday (11 April) EastEnders started at episode one again. They may have also done the same in 2001 when they added another episode, but I dont know for sure.Gungadin 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The internal numbering system used is one thing. The actual count of episodes is another. We aren't the BBC admin officers at WP so shouldn't really care about their internal procedures. What we should be documenting is the count of the number of different episodes actually produced. Format 00:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously! which is what we are trying to do...I have just given an explanation for why the sources quote different episode counts. How can you say we should not be concerned with the BBC's internal numbering system? If we understand their system then it will be easier to work out which sources are more accurate.Gungadin 11:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just meant, keep it off the main page. Format 21:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Overcount of Episodes

The figure in the article is too high. Many episodes have been shown multiple times and/or combined with other episodes as "omnibus editions", so there are episodes that have been double counted. The method used to count episodes used by the article shows how many times East Enders programs have been on the air by BBC, which would definitely overcount episodes. I doubt the actual number of unique episodes is much higher than two thousand and is perhaps even lower. 76.105.3.220 22:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that is the correct figure, see the above discussion. I used a source to count the episodes, and removed the omnibus editions. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually it's not the above discussion, it's in the "Omnibuses" section below. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.
76.105.3.220 08:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There has not been more than 4000 episodes of EastEnders so why does this article say there has? It has jumped about 1000 episodes recently!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.179.223 (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Too Long

This article is obviously too long. I think it could be trimmed down or split up into multiple articles BadtoGood 23:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been, History of EastEnders was created, but none of the other sections are sufficient enough to create a new article. I think it is fine how it is at the moment, actually. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 15:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Trampikey, but if we were to split off another section, "Viewership" is the longest. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cast list

Is the extensive cast list really necessary as part of the infobox? A link to the full cast list would suffice. The fussy list looks clumsy and is hard to read in the context in which it currently appears. Articles for Coronation Street, Emmerdale and Hollyoaks all make use of a link to another article, and I think EastEnders should too. Ben 14:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No views on the matter? The page is 64 kilobytes long (twice as long as any other British soap articles on Wikipedia - only beaten by Hollyoaks). I would have thought that the WikiProject would be looking to condense the article where possible. Surely this is a starting point? Ben 03:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I must say I don't like your provocative nature. Secondly, this article is much better than the articles for Emmerdale and Hollyoaks (and I think Coronation Street too, I don't think it deserves FA status) - so I don't think it should be compared to them as if they are on the same level. The infobox has always worked fine how it was, and the WikiProject is always open to suggestions, but you're going the wrong way about it becoming arrogant and causing a confrontation. Also, there's a guideline on Wikipedia called "Be bold" - which in a nutshell means "if in doubt, fix it" - I suggest you read that page. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 11:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not being provocative, if you think I am then I apologise, but my suggestions are not to be interpreted as such. I grouped EastEnders with other British serial dramas because they are of the same genre - surely Wikipedia strives for uniformity? I am dismayed that you feel I am being so 'arrogant' and you may note that I was bold and edited the page, only for it to be quickly reverted. So, I made a suggestion on the talk page which was ignored for almost 3 days. You will also find that Coronation Street no longer has FA status, but I'm working on it. Ben 16:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Your suggestion was not being ignored. Not everyone is available at this time of year. To be honest, I did think I had replied already. Although I've reverted your changes to the cast list, I only did so because I believe we should discuss it first. I think giving a link to the list of characters would be better, not only to keep the infobox shorter, but the list of characters is better maintained than the list here, which is sometimes left out of date. So I'm in favour of a single link. How about you, Trampikey? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I apologise for not adding a discussion to the Talk Page before editing, but I thought my edit was justifiable since other British soaps follow the same procedure. I understand how important your WikiProject is, and I was only trying to help the general appearance of the article and, of course, its size (I am a bit of a size-freak...no pun intended!).Ben 16:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you mean size queen :) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Goofs

the set designers and researchers really need to go into London a bit more. esp when it comes to study a tube map.. Tuesday 23 Jan esp of eastenders with the kidnapping of Ben shows Martin and Ben on the railway bridge, with 2 goofs, in the past its shown as a normal (nat rail) not a tube bridge so therefore it should of been overhead cables because that line by their current location is running c2c trains.

to further the goof, and the stupidity of the researchers/designers the trains that where (poorly) CGI'ed in seemed to be Northern Line trains instead of District Line or Hammersmith and city lines. they say that walford east is ment to be the real life Bromley-by-Bow station which is runs on the District line and H&C

also has any londoner notice that not one person in walford owns or even mentions owning an oyster card 82.24.175.199 19:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the CGI was good. I don't think it matters too much what train was used. Bradley Branning mentioned on his "lucky day" that he lost his wallet containing (amongst other things) his oyster card. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

well it wasnt realistic, being that close to the trains going that speed, (though it should be a C or a D stock train for the record) martin and ben would of been under the wheels.. also the line would of been at least part suspended because they tresspassed on the line at least one driver would of noticed. in regards to the oyster card. not even the kids have their free one when they go to school cos they take the bus.. just simple things really walford is ment to be part of east London yet it doesnt seem like it.. you dont even see the docklands from the horizon like you would in east London —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.24.175.199 (talk • contribs).

Yes they were too close to the train to not be affected by it. It's a soap opera, not a train spotters guide. Since when have soaps been realistic? There's nothing wrong with taking a bus to school. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

the point is not train spotting, it be like watching a movie about WW2 and they decide to put a harrier jump jet in or something, knowing the eastenders researcher they would. and you missed my point about the bus.. if you live (or been in london) you know that kids have free travel with oyster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.175.199 (talk • contribs)

It's fiction. Not real life. Get over it. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Well they could have made more effort but in the end it doesn't matter. As for the Oyster cards, have we ever seen the children getting on the bus? Oyster cards work on buses too. If we haven't seen it we can't assume they don't use them. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

well the other goof with i pointed out was that it was a mainline railway brige not a tube brige.. because that VE day eastenders i think in 1995 Auther Flower sees a steam train go past the bridge. then it suddenly turned into a tube line.. tube and mainline trains dont share the same line in that part of london they only place that does in between Queens Park and Harrow and Weildstone on the bakerloo line in north london. however the Mainline and Tube line run along side each other east of the tube station but the bridge is not long enough and they should be overhead cables. if thats walford is meant to be. 82.24.175.199 13:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

May I turn your attention to the notice at the top of this page; "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Therefore, please shut up! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 15:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Please be civil. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

wrong

"it is shown on RTÉ One at the same time as BBC One, which is also widely received in the country. This sometimes creates the situation whereby RTÉ completes the airing of an episode before the BBC (usually only by a few seconds, or minutes at most). This is due to the same scheduled start times for the episodes (also differs by several seconds or minutes), but different advertisement formats which causes one to always marginally finish before the other."

How can this be possible when there are no adverts on the BBC?

Ah, but there are - the BBC runs a few trailers between programmes † DBD 21:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"bitches"

So, on this line: "Other recurring characters... are... bitches such as Cindy Beale and Janine Evans..."

Is the use of the word "bitches" not offensive in the UK? --Thomas B 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, awards for 'Best Bitch' are given out at soap awards, so I guess so. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 09:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ronnie and Roxy

Are we certain that these characters are definitely being cast? Has there been confirmation by the BBC? The announcement was made from a tabloid so I was wondering how reliable it was? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.244.3 (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

1. This is not a forum. 2. It has been in two tabloids on the same day, so it's very very unlikely to be a coincidence. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the two tabloids thing, but I don't see this being used as a forum, the anonymous user is just making sure our sources are reliable enough. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Although I am assuming they are Clive's children as no other brothers have been mentioned. I take it Clive was also the only one seen on the family tree on Ben's bedroom wall. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know whether he was on Ben's wall, but he appeared when Louise was renamed... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Ben's wall has been seen a few times recently, perhaps we could try to get a screen shot, and see if we can enhance it. I bet Roxy and Ronnie aren't on it. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to get one. I know that Pauline, Michelle, Martin and Mark are on it for some reason - I think it's because Ian's related to them, because Phil doesn't know about Mark Jr. It was good when it was first seen though, we got Kathy's parents names, Peggy's parents names, and proved that the scriptwriters don't read the website; on there Eric's parents are listed as Harry and Eva, on the wall they're Robert and Sandra. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ratings

Have just added last Thursday's disappointing ratings. Shame on all you Emmerdale fans!!! Was just wondering something. Where it says "Since EastEnders began in 1985, at least one of its episodes have rated higher than any other British soap opera throughout each decade. This includes the 1980s, 1990s and so far the 2000s" what are the actual episodes? I'm guessing the 1980s one is the divorce papers episode. Apologies if it's mentioned in the article but I couldn't be arsed to read. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, EE got thrashed. I always thought Emmerdale was a load of pants, but if it's thrashing EE so much maybe I should start watching it.
I'm not 100% sure, but the episode for 1990s was probably Sharongate -25 million and 2000s was probably the night Phil revealed Lisa as his shooter - 22million.Gungadin 21:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Emmerdale is super dodgy, but when you get Linda Thorson and Susan Penhaligon in the same program this is what happens. Format 23:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Though, funnily enough neither of them were in Thursday's episode. It was really sad (made me cry), and I missed EE for it, then planned to watch the 10pm repeat on BBC Three, but fell asleep, so had to download it! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
There's an omnibus, you know. Will be interesting to see what the ratings are for that this week. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 01:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the assertion that Eastenders is the 'most popular UK soap according to viewing figures' as a) It isn't - Coronation Street regularly trounces it and b) there were no actual figures to verify the claim. Smurfmeister 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EastEnders Radiotimes 3nights.jpg

Image:EastEnders Radiotimes 3nights.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Credits

Any ideas why the credits rolled the old way tonight? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess that they've been changed. I like it, easier to read. Another of Santer's good improvements I say! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It freaked me out and it's not easier to read when they squeeze it down into a tiny box, at least before they only squashed it to half a page! — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
New guidelines, bbc.co.uk/commissioning. And this is not a Forum. AxG @ ►talk 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't using Wikipedia as a forum, the reason might have been worth mentioning in the article. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Omnibuses

If there's consensus not to count the omnibuses then somebody do the math to discount them from the total. I haven't the foggiest how many there have been. Matthew 14:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if as Trampi states they started recounting after they reached 1000 episodes... well I don't see that as a reason to discount a thousand episodes... Matthew 14:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See the #Episode count section above, and it's Trampikey, not Trampi. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone's bored, they can count all the episodes on walford.net if they so wish. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, so does anybody know how many episodes have been broadcast? The BBC seems pretty definitive. And does the website you state above have all the episode listed? Matthew 14:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it should do. Apart from 1989, but that's simple to calculate - 2 a week for 52 weeks - 104 episodes. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
That's assuming no one-offs, no specials, no episodes missed for any reason, do we/they count hour-long episodes as one or two etc. etc. :-) Stephenb (Talk) 15:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, this is actually pretty confusing. Here's a point: is it actually needed? I think something in the lead stating there's been a shitload of episodes would suffice, yes? Because really, with a show like EE... is an exact figure really needed? Hehe. Matthew 15:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, the source you quote is unreliable. For instance, it lists 3 episodes of "Terror of the Zygons" for Doctor Who in 1998! (http://open.bbc.co.uk/catalogue/infax/series/DR+WHO) Stephenb (Talk) 15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It should list all the air dates of BBC programmes, including repeats. Matthew 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is this suddenly an issue? We've never counted omnibuses. We've always counted hour long episodes as one episode. I calculated it once based on the number of episodes a week and the number of weeks and it was about right. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 16:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Should see WP:NOR then :\ Matthew 16:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh and that website lists spin-offs like EastEnders Sweethearts and episodes of EastEnders, which they are not. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 16:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It lists anything with EastEnders in its title. Matthew 16:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Then we can't use it as a source. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 16:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Whatever gave you that idea :)? Matthew 16:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Also using a date like 21 March makes it seem like there's been no episodes since then. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 16:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Currently counting the episodes

Using info from the BBC source and walford.net.

So far:

  • 91 in 1985
  • 104 in 1986
  • 106 in 1987
  • 104 in 1988
  • 104 in 1989

-Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going to do that but walford.net has an incomplete list. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Bugger! On walford.net, when there are 2 episodes on one day, they're listed together. I've buggered it up already. Argh. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I used the list on the BBC thing to make this... 3335 episodes as of 23 March 2007. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Therefore "3381 (as of 31 May 2007)" as it was before, seems correct. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
How many to 12 June then? This should probably be cited with something like: <ref>[..] (discounting weekly omnibus episode)</ref> then.
Tonight's episode should bring it up to 3388. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The omnibus doesn't count as an episode, it's a repeat, and therefore not an episode in its own right. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The episode count has jumped from 3000 something to 4000, it was nearer the actual number when it was 3000 something although it wasn't correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.24.185 (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ian Hunter's Use of "EastEnders"

Regarding the cultural significance of the television show EastEnders, it plays a prominent role in the song of Ian Hunter (formerly the front-man of the 1970s band Mott the Hoople) titled "Dead Man Walking (EastEnders)" from his 2001 album titled Rant. On an album that received favorable reviews (ranging from good to a masterpiece), this song is most often cited as being the highlight of this album/CD. The overall theme of the album is Ian Hunter's take on the United Kingdom at the start of the new millennium. Other songs that fit this theme on the CD include "Wash Us Away," "Death of a Nation," and "Morons." In Ian Hunter's song "Dead Man Walking (EastEnders)" he sings of aging, with the fear of becoming obsolete obscure and forgotten, all the while singing "this ain't EastEnders, it's the real thing." Regarding the song, Ian Hunter has been quoted as saying that he considers this to be one of his finest songs, which seems to be the consensus from both fans and rock music critics. In a 3 CD retrospective of his work, THE JOURNEY: A RETROSPECTIVE OF MOTT THE HOOPLE AND IAN HUNTER, Ian Hunter writes of "Dead Man Walking (EastEnders)": "This is brutal self-assessment. I like the sound of this. I like the piano." Full lyrics to the song can be found at: [[1]] For more information about Ian Hunter and his solo discography, www.ianhuter.com is a fine place to start.

75.6.227.233 03:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)William Innes

Fair use rationale for Image:Who's who EE.jpg

Image:Who's who EE.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Primary to High School

Is Ben Mitchell starting Walford High School in September? He should be because he was born in 1996, and he should start Walford High School in September because he was born in 1996, he is 11 years old, and 12 years old in 2008. 16:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot 04:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, but ages of youngsters in soaps are oftentimes rather fluid – SORAS † DBD
We won't find out until September. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The answer was yes. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 00:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)