Talk:Sam Mitchell (EastEnders)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject EastEnders, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the popular BBC soap opera EastEnders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at this page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
What does everyone think of all these titles that have been added to this article? I think they look messy and they aren't needed either. Gungadin 13:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] IBOX
AP, let me know your thoughts on the box when you notice this.Gungadin♦ 23:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Lollage. Yeah it looks ok. Not sure about the second image, actually, but it's something that will grow on me. anemone
Iprojectors 23:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)- I know what you mean about the image, but I think it's because Daniella westbrook looks fluorescent in that image. I will try and find a better one and see if that changes our opinions.Gungadin♦ 23:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's because there's nothing above it to separate it from the text, like there is when an album or single has a second image at the bottom. anemone
Iprojectors 23:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)- Is there anyway that we could put a blue frame bar above the pic, but make it so that it was optional? So that we can include it only when we use 2 images? otherwise we can change it around and have the family drop section above the image? Gungadin♦ 00:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, we can make it so there's a blue bar if there's a second image, but it might be complicated so I'd need to try to figure it out. anemone
Iprojectors 21:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)- It took me this long to work it out, but I've got it right! There's always a |- hanging around when I try to do clever things with templates! What would you like your blue bar's caption to say? :) anemone
Iprojectors 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- It took me this long to work it out, but I've got it right! There's always a |- hanging around when I try to do clever things with templates! What would you like your blue bar's caption to say? :) anemone
- Yes, we can make it so there's a blue bar if there's a second image, but it might be complicated so I'd need to try to figure it out. anemone
- Is there anyway that we could put a blue frame bar above the pic, but make it so that it was optional? So that we can include it only when we use 2 images? otherwise we can change it around and have the family drop section above the image? Gungadin♦ 00:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's because there's nothing above it to separate it from the text, like there is when an album or single has a second image at the bottom. anemone
- I know what you mean about the image, but I think it's because Daniella westbrook looks fluorescent in that image. I will try and find a better one and see if that changes our opinions.Gungadin♦ 23:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That looks much better, thanku for doing it. Do you prefer it now? By caption do you mean the place where it says "Altenative image"? That sounds ok to me, or we could have former actor I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gungadin (talk • contribs) 22:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think "Alternate image" is fine. I came up with it last minute. Copied the "alternate cover" bit for singles. Yeah I do prefer it now. How long until we merge the two infoboxes so they're all the same? :) anemone
Iprojectors 22:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- We could do it any time you like. I was going to put in more fields for other family members. I'm keen to do this so that we can get rid of those overlong family section on all the bloody Falhertys and Liam Butcher. I think it looks weird when the family section is so big and there's only a line or two of writing. All the characters can have a complete infobox family section, except Pauline, because it would never be allowed ;) Speaking of Pauline's ibox, I noticed that someone removed 'status = deceased' (lol). I'm giving up on that article now, im so bored of debating over her. My opinions are always automatically incorrect, and even if I or others object, certain individuals just do things the way they want regardless. OOU info has been cut and I'm not happy with the enforcement of ambiguous guidelines like 'Tense', especially as the changes are based on someone's interpretation of the guideline and nothing else. And we got an oppose because one word was "is" instead of "was", which is what the guideline tells us to do!! Are you feeling like me too? (I notice you've given up on all the debating also :)Gungadin♦ 00:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Because of the family section, changing the userboxes needs to be done manually on each page, so it'll take a long time! It's not a simple move/redirect/change of a template. Pauline's status was removed because she has a date of death, meaning it's obvious that she's dead. Can't really disagree with that. I hardly follow the FA debate let alone get involved! I want it to pass but it is annoying. I didn't know OOU stuff had been removed though. What like? anemone
Iprojectors 00:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)- I sent you an email via wiki to explain some things, let me know if you get it. Regarding the family issue, I still think we could swap it over now without any problems. The list of family in a character with an original ibox, will move into the collapsible menu. But this wont matter because we have a field for 'family' within the dropdown menu. It's meant for the family articles (like Beales/Fowlers), but without a family article link, the field will just list the family the way they were in the original infobox (non-specific like Grant, Phil Courtney etc). This way we could add sibling children field at our own pace. Would that not work? Gungadin♦ 02:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yeah that would work. The easiest way would be to either redirect the first template to the new one, or delete the first one and move the new one - or even copy and paste the new one to the old one, and redirect the new one, thus retaining the entire history of the first one. And I did get your email, thanks. anemone
Iprojectors 10:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yeah that would work. The easiest way would be to either redirect the first template to the new one, or delete the first one and move the new one - or even copy and paste the new one to the old one, and redirect the new one, thus retaining the entire history of the first one. And I did get your email, thanks. anemone
- I sent you an email via wiki to explain some things, let me know if you get it. Regarding the family issue, I still think we could swap it over now without any problems. The list of family in a character with an original ibox, will move into the collapsible menu. But this wont matter because we have a field for 'family' within the dropdown menu. It's meant for the family articles (like Beales/Fowlers), but without a family article link, the field will just list the family the way they were in the original infobox (non-specific like Grant, Phil Courtney etc). This way we could add sibling children field at our own pace. Would that not work? Gungadin♦ 02:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Because of the family section, changing the userboxes needs to be done manually on each page, so it'll take a long time! It's not a simple move/redirect/change of a template. Pauline's status was removed because she has a date of death, meaning it's obvious that she's dead. Can't really disagree with that. I hardly follow the FA debate let alone get involved! I want it to pass but it is annoying. I didn't know OOU stuff had been removed though. What like? anemone
- We could do it any time you like. I was going to put in more fields for other family members. I'm keen to do this so that we can get rid of those overlong family section on all the bloody Falhertys and Liam Butcher. I think it looks weird when the family section is so big and there's only a line or two of writing. All the characters can have a complete infobox family section, except Pauline, because it would never be allowed ;) Speaking of Pauline's ibox, I noticed that someone removed 'status = deceased' (lol). I'm giving up on that article now, im so bored of debating over her. My opinions are always automatically incorrect, and even if I or others object, certain individuals just do things the way they want regardless. OOU info has been cut and I'm not happy with the enforcement of ambiguous guidelines like 'Tense', especially as the changes are based on someone's interpretation of the guideline and nothing else. And we got an oppose because one word was "is" instead of "was", which is what the guideline tells us to do!! Are you feeling like me too? (I notice you've given up on all the debating also :)Gungadin♦ 00:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the last option sounds best, so we can keep the former one in the edit history.Gungadin♦ 17:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sams arrested0.jpg
Image:Sams arrested0.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sam andy hunter.jpg
Image:Sam andy hunter.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
