Talk:Lou Beale/Archive 1

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.

It is my opinion that any discussion of Lou Beale should remain completely focused on the character's life within the serial itself. The inclusion of the spin-off material, without sufficient explanation will only serve to confuse the reader and create a distorted view of the character (a big family woman, yet somehow she manages to lose three of her children who never feature within EastEnders). I think it is best that ANY reference to the spin-off novelisations and characters goes there, rather than on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.244.230 (talk • contribs)

I can see your point of view, I don't see any harm in adding the novel's information, so long as it is referenced etc. Perhaps a separate section should be included on Lou's page, entirely dedicated to the going on in the novels. That way it would be included on the page and also will be distinguisable from the on-screen stuff. Any thoughts? Gungadin 16:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Gungadin. That has been my problem all along, that Trampikey included this information without enough references - if we are going to include Harry, Dora and Ronnie within Lou's History we need to make it clear there that these are characters who were created through the EastEnders spin-offs, and are therefore not relevant to the life of the serial. I think your idea is great though - a section devoted purely to Lou's history within the novelisations would take away any of the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.244.230 (talk • contribs)
All information on characters is valuable, which includes the official information from the BBC approved novels, written by an EastEnders script writer, and information featuring in a BBC produced programme (Civvy Street). Also, as previously mentioned, information about the characters of Ronnie, Dora, Gail and Harry may be seen in articles about those particular characters, when I have created said articles. I have already produced an article on Harry Beale, and we do not need loads of information about those characters cluttering up this article. The Harry Beale article makes it clear that he featured in the spin-offs, but that doesn't make him any less of an EastEnders character.
I think you have done this as a personal preference, as you have removed all trace of the spin-off characters from the article on numerous occasions. Just because you don't want the information there, it doesn't make the information any less relevant.
I ask you to please stop removing this information, the books have been cited for certain facts within the article, and as I said, articles on Ronnie, Dora and Gail will be produced shortly. Thank you Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you think to Gungadin's proposal that any information regarding the EastEnder's spin-offs are included in their own section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.244.230 (talk • contribs)
As I said on your talk page, we should strive to gather all ready information on the character, in stead of just ignoring certain parts of her history. Therefore, information from the novels did happen in her past, and belongs in the section that describes the character's history. Having two sections describing two different stories would be stupid, and make the article look choppy. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 17:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It should be made clear that information on her past is taken from a book and not from the TV show but not necessarily in a separate section. But information such as her sisters names should not be removed from the family section as the books and spin-off shows are considered to be canonical. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It is already made clear that it is taken from the book, I have added references to say that the information comes from the books, and the articles (when I have time to create them) will specify that those characters appeared in the books. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 17:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that this distinction should be made more clear. And why not in a seperate section? Lou Beale is primarily a TV character - with a seperate history to that of the novelisations, of which Harry, Dora and Ronnie feature, as purely literary characters. In order to explore Lou's existence within the novelisations, creating a new section seems to be the best way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.244.230 (talk • contribs)
I think her history should be in chronological order, therefore the books and the Civvy Street spin-off would most likely come first anyway. Please can you sign your posts with 4 tildes (~)? Thanks. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Harry and Ronnie are not purely literary characters, they appear in Civvy Street also. Lou's past happened before the show was transmitted, are you saying that we should disregard the histories of all the EastEnders characters and just focus on their time in the show? We need to collect all the information we can on Lou Beale, and as none of the information actually contradicts each other, I don't see why it has to be split up. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 17:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not saying we should disregard the histories of all the EastEnders characters and just focus on their time in the show. I am saying that we need to make a distinction between what has come from the TV serial and what has come from the novelisations. And that is what this argument is always going to come down to. You may not think the information contradicts each other, but it does. None of these characters have ever been metioned within the history of the serialisation by Pauline, Lou or Pete. Seeing as Ronnie, Dora and Harry are supposed to be family, that is a pretty big contradiction. Amenone, the tilde key on my keyboard is broken unfortunately, sorry about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.244.230 (talk • contribs)
Then I suggest you buy a new keyboard or learn to copy and paste. Oh, and it's anemone not amenone. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Ronnie is on the EastEnders website. Dora's wedding has been mentioned with the "Arthur proposing to Pauline" story, and Ronnie and Harry appeared in Civvy Street, produced by the same people as EastEnders. The distinction can be made, as I have said OVER and OVER again, in the articles that I shall be creating. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 17:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Anemone. Anyway guys, I hope it is not a violation to edit article in a mature and intelligent fashion because that is what I will continue to do. It is a shame both of you have made this into a bigger deal than it really needs to be as it's clear we are all working towards the same aim. 84.68.244.230 17:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I think, actually, that AnemoneProjectors and myself have reached a valid consensus, to keep the article how it is. If anyone else wishes to raise issue with this, they may do, but as we have both reached the consensus to leave it, it would be against WP:CON, an official Wikipedia guideline. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 17:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Mate, relax a bit sometimes! This is only meant to be a bit of fun, after all and we're only trying to make this article the best it can possibly be - so it's all good. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.244.230 (talk • contribs)
I am not your mate, and Wikipedia is not "just a bit of fun" - there are regulations to be followed. Please don't act like you know me. You don't. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 19:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea. perhaps we can leave all the information in the main body of the page as it is, including the extra bits from the novels that Trampikey has added. Then at the bottom of the page we can do a section about Lou in other media, which can explain about the novels and add a sentence to explain that the characters were not featured in the show etc. We can provide links in the main article to that part of the page. That way we dont have to clutter up the main body of the article with lots of explanations about the information's origin. Would anyone have a problem with that? I don't mind either way to be honest and I do think the information should be included, particularly as it was relevant to civvy st - i'm just trying to find a solution where everyone will be happy. Gungadin 18:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea Gungadin. I have written a paragraph which I hope is to everyone's liking. If not - please post in here any grievances, rather than just directly reverting to an old edit - or shouting at me. I really hope we can sort out this issue to everyone's satisfaction. Thanks by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.244.230 (talk • contribs)

You shouldn't have edited the article until a consensus was reached. I do not agree with what you did, and think the article should be left in its present state, which is the consensus reached by myself and AnemoneProjectors. Gungadin was only submitting an idea to keep people happy, and is therefore neutral, so, as previously stated, if anyone else has any grievances, they may contest the consensus here, otherwise, the article whould stay how it is. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 19:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right, you're definitely not likely to become my mate but neither does that give you the right to treat me in a rude and obnoxious manner and revert my edits as you see fit. If you have a problem with an edit I've made - post your grievances here and I hope we will both display the maturity and strength of character to talk them over and reach a conclusion that both is happy with.
Here is the paragraph I posted.
==Novelisations==
The character Lou Beale featured within a series of spin-off EastEnders novels, set beyond 1985, by Hugh Miller. Within these stories we were introduced to three more of Lou's children, never featured within the serial itself; Harry, Ronnie and Dora. As well as some of Lou's siblings, Elsie, Liz, Queenie, Ternce and Doris. It is a hotly debated topic among fans over whether the events and some of the characters of these stories may be seen as 'canon' to the character of the TV serial, as they went un-mentioned throughout, even to this day. It is likely that these characters formed part of Lou's original character biography, used by Hugh Miller as a basis for his own novels, and later 'forgotten' within the world of the tv serial itself. Within this article they have been included as much part of Lou's history as the events and characters we know from directly on-screen.
84.68.244.230 19:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that if this section is included, then it shouldnt say that the characters were unmentioned, because Ronnie and Harry were included in Civvy St. which aired after Lou's death, and was, as such, the last screened evidence we have on this subject. Also someone else stated elsewhere that Lou's sister Doris was mentioned, and apparently married someone called Morris Miller Gungadin 19:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair point. I can put that Ronnie and Harry were included in Civvy Street, but not in the actual programme itself. And I will make references to Doris Beale as well. The only one of Lou's sisters to be featured on screen was Flo though. In Civvy Street she was played by Linda Robson (!) and she also appeared at her funeral, although not heavily - more as an extra. 84.68.244.230 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The Flo in Civvy Street was a different Flo. And it's Doris Miller, not Beale. I think the paragraph is ludicrous. Myself and AnemoneProjectors reached a consensus, Gungadin, if you would like to contest it, please say, otherwise, please leave the article alone! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 20:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
No, the Flo in Civvy Street was Lou's sister. I think your objections are ridiculous. You do not own this article and your unconstructive objection have failed to convince me that posting this paragraph within the article is a bad idea. What exactly is ludicrous about it? What would you change? As I have stated previously, I have already contributed a lot to this article; I am a huge fan of the show and the character and you do not have the right to dictate how my interest and knowledge can be expressed within this page. It is wrong to suggest we have reached some sort of consensus when this discussion was started by myself to reach some sort of conclusion that we all could agree upon. I have struggled to try and meet you half-way but you stubbornly refuse to co operate - I believe you are taking this far too personally and using any personal objections you may have against me to form your point of view. Therefore, I will re-insert an edited version of my paragraph into this article, taking on board Gungadin's advice. Notfred 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have also added some further information regarding the creation of the character and the fact she was based upon Tony Holland's Aunt.Notfred 20:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you started this discussion is irrelevant, a consensus has been reached. I will not revert, as you made a valuable contribtion to the Inside Story paragraph, but I shall remove all the parts that the consensus was reached on. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 21:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The consensus has been reached between Gungadin and I and I have therefore included this paragraph within the article. 21:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have edited in a proper reference to Eastenders - The Inside Story (an amazing book by the way). It has two authors (Tony Holland and Julia Smith) and I'm unsure how include both of those within the reference, at the moment only Julia Smith is showingNotfred 21:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to do this either, so I changed it so itjust links to Julia Smith, for now. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 21:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

STOP REVERTING THE ARTICLE!

Having properly compared both versions and read the comments on this talk page, I have to say I agree with Gungadin. We should leave Trampikey's version as it is but add a section at the end. I've slightly edited Notfred's paragraph:

"Lou's character is also featured within a series of spin-off EastEnders novels, set before 1985, by Hugh Miller. Within these stories we were introduced to Lou's children Harry, Ronnie and Dora, as well as some of Lou's siblings; Elsie, Liz, Queenie, Ternce and Doris. These characters formed part of Lou's original character biography and were used by Hugh Miller as the basis for his own novels."

Simple, and hopefully it'll keep everyone happy because I'm getting really pissed off with this edit war. If you don't stop now, I shall ask an administrator to get involved. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If it talks about the character biography, it should be in the first paragraph, along with the Inside Soap extract. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree this paragraph should be at the beginning, rather than the end of the article. I also think there could be one more sentence to mention that none of these characters featured within the every day serial itself - just to clear up any confusion.
"The character of Lou Beale also featured within a series of spin-off EastEnders novels, set before 1985, by Hugh Miller. Within these stories we were introduced to Lou's children Harry, Ronnie and Dora, as well as some of Lou's siblings; Elsie, Liz, Queenie, Terence and Doris, who did not make an appearance within the serial itself. These characters formed part of Lou's original character biography and were used by Hugh Miller as the basis for his own novels." Notfred 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Doris isn't from the books, she's from the actual show, not even Civvy Street, she was mentioned a lot in the early days of EastEnders. The bit about her appearing in the novels should stay in the lead, as I plan to put it in the lead of Ethel's article, etc. If you insist on this paragraph (which should actually be in the EastEnders books article) the paragraph should be in the first section should read; "The EastEnders novels featured Lou's siblings, Terence, Queenie, Elsie and Liz, who had died before the start of the television serial in 1985. Her sons Harry and Ronnie also appeared, as did her daughter Dora. Harry and Ronnie also appeared in the spin-off episode entitled EastEnders: Civvy Street, but Dora didn't, as she never saw eye-to-eye with her mother, and she got married and moved away when she was young." Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 19:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I like that Trampikey, so let's go with that. Yeah? -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I prefer your original paragraph Anemone. Keep it simple, or not at all. Trampikey's starts to go into the history of the character, which is fine, but that belong's in it's own section. If you really have an objection with me mentioning the fact that none of these characters appeared within the TV show EastEnders - then I suppose we could leave it out. But the rest, should still stand.
The character of Lou Beale also featured within a series of spin-off EastEnders novels, set before 1985, by Hugh Miller. Within these stories we were introduced to Lou's children Harry, Ronnie and Dora, as well as some of Lou's siblings; Elsie, Liz, Queenie and Terence. These characters formed part of Lou's original character biography and were used by Hugh Miller as the basis for his own novels."
Trampikey, I understand you're only 15, so I don't blame you - but have you ever even seen the early days of EastEnders? I have 1985 - 89 on DVD and video, and in all honesty Doris is lucky if she even gets a mention. I am an avid viewer of these episodes, and I haven't heard of her. Anyway, that actually has little do with the matter in hand. Notfred 19:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
AnemoneProjectors and myself both agree that my paragraph is the best. Now leave it. And the information for Doris comes from WT:WPEE, which you might like to have a look at. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 20:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say yours was best, I just said I liked it. Perhaps we can combine the two? -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. Trampikey, is there anything you would like to add to the paragraph I have written, to make you happier about it being included? Notfred 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"The character of Lou Beale also featured within a series of spin-off EastEnders novels, set before 1985, by Hugh Miller." - This will be in the lead of the article, and is not needed.

"Within these stories we were introduced to Lou's children Harry, Ronnie and Dora, as well as some of Lou's siblings; Elsie, Liz, Queenie and Terence." Mine says: "The EastEnders novels featured Lou's siblings, Terence, Queenie, Elsie and Liz, who had died before the start of the television serial in 1985. Her sons Harry and Ronnie also appeared, as did her daughter Dora. Harry and Ronnie also appeared in the spin-off episode entitled EastEnders: Civvy Street, but Dora didn't, as she never saw eye-to-eye with her mother, and she got married and moved away when she was young." Which explains things better.

"These characters formed part of Lou's original character biography and were used by Hugh Miller as the basis for his own novels." - isn't really needed, so I think my paragraph is better... Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs)

It has already been agreed between AnemoneProjectors and myself to include a combination of our two paragraphs, as this is fairer and not simply one or the other - as clearly neither of us will be pleased with this outcome. I have already significantly edited my paragraph to try and make you happy. Please remeber to assume good faith!. I don't believe we need to include any references to Lou's history within this paragraph, and this information can replace the current sentence referecing the books, so my edit of yours would go as follows...
"The character of Lou Beale also featured within a series of spin-off EastEnders novels, set before 1985, by Hugh Miller. Her sons Harry and Ronnie also appeared, as did her daughter Dora. Harry and Ronnie also appeared in the spin-off episode entitled EastEnders: Civvy Street. These characters formed part of Lou's original character biography and were used by Hugh Miller as the basis for his own novels."
I believe that last sentence is important in establishing where these characters came from - that they have a credible source - and that they were not neccesarily made up by Hugh Miller for his own stories. Notfred 20:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that sounds good. The stuff about Dora moving away can be mentioned in the 'Lou's History' section possibly Gungadin 20:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I was the one that posted the info on Doris Miller, she wasn't a character in eastenders but she was mentioned by a character called Harry Osborne, who did appear! If u dont believe me...Go Research!! Yathosh 00:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Gungadin. Does anyone else have any objections? If not, I will edit this paragraph into the article - as well as some information regarding Lou's sister Doris (found on this site http://www.walford.net/cgi-bin/enders.pl?record=0425)Notfred 17:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverts and Lou's maiden name

Please do not simply revert an article, if there is only one edit that you do not agree with - as I had put in a lot of extra information in which was lost. Re: Medeemey - the conclusion reach regarding this being supposed Lou's maiden name was not conclusive at all (see Project Talk Page)

(Quoted from WT:WPEE) The Medeeney thing is a mistake- Medeemey was the adopted name of Maggie Flaherty before she married Sean Flaherty- or it could be her name because Lou wasn't married at the time of Maggie's death... I don't know- it could be either I suppose- I just assumed that the family who adopted Maggie were called Medeemey because it sounds like an Irish name.

I therefore don't think we should be posting this information as fact.Notfred 17:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I compared your two versions properly today. There was hardly any difference between them. I have no idea what the disagreement with most of it was! I kind of combined both versions anyway, so hopefully this edit war has now stopped. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Out Of Universe Perspective

I have edited Lou's page to a more Out Of Universe Perspective, which is in accordance with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). No information has been removed, some has been added, and it is has been re ordered a little. The "Lou's History" section now only contains information which is relevant to Lou's life within EastEnders the television programme. Notfred 11:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job! Well done :) -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 2, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes.
2. Factually accurate?: Requires more in-line citations.
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes.
4. Neutral point of view?: Yes.
5. Article stability? Yes.
6. Images?: The images aren't very good. They are not compliant with the FUC, images require fair use rationales for each use. Two do not even have a rationale.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far.

Comments

The tense of the article does not comply with Wikipedia's manual of style (and is as I've stated at the EastEnders WikiProject, incorrect). See WP:TENSE.

The article requires more in-line citations, there's a lot of character history here, these should all reference the air date of the episode the events transpire in to be verifiable. Matthew 13:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vlcsnap-568524.png

Image:Vlcsnap-568524.png 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.

BetacommandBot 23:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)