Talk:EastEnders/archive

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

Opening comments

I have cleared up confusion between the postal district E20, and the club E20, by removing the parenthesised comment about the club. The sentence as is stood, seemed to be saying that the postal district was renamed Angie's Den, which is clearly nonsensical.

Re: "Walford has the postal district of E20, thus fans have also tried to pinpoint the location using this.". London postal districts are alphabetical, not geographical. E16 = Victoria Dock, E17 = Walthamstow. E18 = Woodford. If the postal district is also called Walford, it would be E16½! TiffaF 10:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think that Kelly should come back from Spain, the executive producers never gave Brooke Kinsella's character time to develop and get a proper storyline. Kelly was a popular character in the soap and her arrival back to the square would add a much needed boost to the storylines. I would like to see her return to give Zoe a friend who she can rely on!! (.:


Is there any way to briefly describe what EastEnders is all about in the opening paragraphs? Understandably, long running british TV series tend to be about everything and anything, but there has to be a way encapsulating the series and orienting the reader besides saying it's "a soap opera." Thanks in advance.Jahenderson 20:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

I am busy at this moment, but I would like to point out that this rewrite is extremely POV. I'll dig up examples later. Mike H 06:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

This link has been cited, but I have a print source "40 Years on Coronation Street" by Daran Little which has the viewing figures from 1994. The difference may be that the EastEnders episode aired in '94 came on during the second of two parts of a Corrie episode (Emily's engagement breaking off). Mike H 06:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
The whole artile seems wildly pro-EastEnders. Well-known criticisms of the show are mentioned but then mostly seem to be followed by some sort of justification or excuse, and generally much of it seems to sound quite defensive. The article seems to focus on the received knowledge that EE is gritty, harsh, realistic. What about the endless comedy, romance, extra-marital affairs? The sporting teams and community fund raisers? The dramas of the Angie's Den fire inspection? Cindy's hair colouring disaster? Barry's blue-ink carpet stain? Barry's "realistic" home movies? Wellard and Robbie? Barry or Nigel? This sort of thing is often much more common than anything gritty or "realistic" in the show. I will try to clean this up though. Asa01 22:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree there's very little mention of the criticisms of the show that people who don't watch Eastenders use; ie that the show is very abstract in comparison to real life situations yet tries to appear down to Earth; many of the plotlines are recycled with the odd variation in number of characters involved in a given plot ie the affairs; the acting is a lot of the time quite dire, many of the actors ham it up or use ridiculous body language and many a time the script appears poorly written, ie the conversations and dialogue seem absurd or out of character.

Feel free to add the information but how it stood was incorrect, there was also no source cited at the time for me to check. The two of them have since aired in the same position, and EastEnders won.

The fact that it was worded "since then EastEnders has not aired at the same time as its rival." seems highly unneutral to me (which is not suprising coming from Coronation Street's creator), perhaps it would have been better as "neither have since aired in the same time as each other"

If it is the case that EastEnders aired in the second half of Coronation Street then its probably best to state that as it has a clear advantage.

If there are more examples of my edits you would like to point out, I'll be happy to check them and see what I can do.

Also - It would maybe help to include some of this information on Coronation Street's entry for 'Scheduling', whilst trying to remain neutral.

User:EastEnders the great

Page 34 KB long...

Hey, since it is displaying the message the page is not the preferred article size do we need to cut part of it off into a new section?

I'm thinking the cast section should be removed and have it's own section possibly... as it is one of the longest sections which doesn't really add anything. The present cast is also listed at the info box at the top so is therfore just repeating the information.

Anybody else have anything to say? Thanks User:EastEnders the great

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of huge cast lists on wikipedia. I think that's the kind of thing we link to the IMBD. Since the Coronation Street article is a featured article, we should try and follow that as much as possible. The JPS 18:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


I am working on a 'Characters of EastEnders' section as we speak (a bit like what 'The Simpsons' has done), as another article away from EastEnders but it will allow us to remove the 'Cast' section. --EastEnders the great 01:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

"Disasters" in Walford

Firstly, most of the content of this section does not relate to that of disasters.

DEFINITION: A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society causing widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses which exceed the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources.

A disaster by definition would be something like the terrible Kashmir earthquake in Pakistan recently.

Secondly, most of the content has or can be mentioned in the storylines section.

Thirdly, because of the size of the EastEnders article we really need to be strict on the content in it, this section in particular is repetitive.

This section is vague and whilst could be informative just adds to the weight of the article, something the article has slowly been moving towards is of a more contextual and historic, anything other than this, that is directly relevant to EastEnders should either be removed or have its own article created like many already have in the past - BUT only if these added articles are needed and again, provide useful information.

I feel that sections such as 'Disasters in Walford' and the rather plain 'DVD and Videos' (which I admit - I made! :P) are more suited to an ordinary website, we need to create something unique - and following in the example of the Coronation Street article, whether featured article or not should not be the aim. Most of the content of that article has become the slush that is just about cleared from the EastEnders article. EastEnders the great 01:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Scheduling Change

I've added the correct reason for the 7:00PM to 7:30PM scheduling change - the article previously (wrongly) suggested that it was in response to complaints about subject matter.

Opening image

What does 'which was originally developed by a series of pictures' mean?--StN 18:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

GA awarded

Things to address in order to go further (like FA) :

  • Article needs better references (or if the Further reading section was used for the article it should be in the reference section).
  • Trivia section needs trimming. Like #2 to #5 should be regrouped or placed in a subsection titled Reception under Viewership.

Lincher 03:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

45 KB Long

This article is massively over the suggested limit of Wikipedia.

Get it cut down asap. Ben 02:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
In spite of anything, this article is simply too long. I don't feel I know enough about EastEnders to do it justice so it was a mere suggestion. I did not mean to cause offense, and can I suggest that you don't be so defensive in future.
Think about the cut-down, it would be worthwhile Ben 17:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It's been discussed before, and it's an ongoing task of our WikiProject. Sorry about before. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

History of Albert Square

Why are the house numbers missing in Albert Square. Were they knocked down during the war or something? Pauline's house is 45, but there aren't 45 houses in Albert Square?--SimonPeter 15:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a very good question. I did wonder, but I don't know why. Have a look at list of addresses in EastEnders and also the map of Albert Square. The map doesn't make much sense to me, as there are lots of numbers missing that have actually been lived in in the show. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

CHARACTERS TO RETURN?

Does anyone know if there are any plans for the following characters to return?

  • Nick Cotton
  • Sharon Rickman
  • Lisa Fowler
  • Melanie Owen
  • Kat Moon
  • Alfie Moon
  • Grant Mitchell

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexWilkes (talk • contribs)

There are no plans for Sharon and Kat to return (this has been officially confirmed). It is unlikely that any of the others will return. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Please don't use Wikipedia as a forum. Talk pages are there to discuss the article, not to speculate about the topic. Thank you. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 22:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter Beale

Why has the actor of Peter Beale changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.5 (talk • contribs)

Pass. Wikipedia is not a forum. Try Google. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)