Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Image

Which of these images should we use?

^anemone│_projectors 18:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Or a combination, London with EE over the top? ^anemone│_projectors 22:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the river picGung adin ♦ 00:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Took me ages to find a free image that was a satellite photo of London showing that part of the Thames! I changed it already but thought I should ask too. ^anemone│_projectors 01:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Beales and Brannings

Is there a way we can merge minor Beales and Brannings into the family articles? ^anemone│_projectors 22:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's do that. Gung adin ♦ 00:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That will help our image problem anyway. ^anemone│_projectors 01:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor images

They've been removed yet again. FFS! It actually says "It may be acceptable to include a single image that portrays multiple enumerated elements from the list, or at most two or three separate non-free images portraying items from the list, provided that all other non-free considerations are met." So should we revert? I'm a little sick of these people making the rules up themselves.Gung adin ♦ 00:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it's ok to have two or three images, then let's have two or three images. And find new articles to put the rest ;) More family pages? What about minor people who worked at the club being merged into the club article? Not sure that would work though. ^anemone│_projectors 01:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's just revert them all first, so that the images dont get orphaned and we have to remove the tags yet again. Then we need to decide which ones to merge or get rid of. Changing the article's names to remove the word "list" might mean that they wont get noticed for a while. Or we could once again try to merge babies into parents. Or, for instance, we could have an article titled The Osman children, and combine them. Hassan Osman already has sourced OOU stuff, so it would probably avoid deletion if we merged into him. I dont really like that idea, but I cant think of anything else.Gung adin ♦ 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, revert first. I'm still not sure about the idea of babies being merged to parents but perhaps it could work. Try it. I don't think renaming the articles to remove the word "list" is such a good idea. I think more family pages would work. We could do all family pages like we've done the Flaherty section of the EE in Ireland page, with sections for each family member, instead of just plot for the whole family. ^anemone│_projectors 17:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Op clean-up discussion

I cant think of one current character that doesnt need vast improvement. We should choose one and work on it together.Gung adin ♦ 20:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but we need to assess which one/s need most attention first. I think Oscar and William should be merged into the 2007 minor list, and can be un-merged if/when they become major characters - they may stay there like Jack Evans, who knows...? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest putting this table on the main WP:EE page under the section heading Articles in urgent need of attention as I almost did earlier today. I just had a go at condensing the plot on Ronnie Mitchell (before I saw this here). Half of it wasn't even about her. But it's still far too long. The worst are probably Ronnie, Roxy and Lucy. ^anemone│_projectors 22:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for the "Good OOU stuff and comments from actor" comment on Christian, it was my first OOU section! ^anemone│_projectors 22:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just realised it was Gungadin who said that and I already knew what she thought about it ;) ^anemone│_projectors 22:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OMG, Penny Branning is overly long already! Things are definitely getting out of hand. ^anemone│_projectors 22:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to check talk pages as Gungadin and I have been collecting sources. ^anemone│_projectors 20:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Somebody called User:Frickative has started doing plot reductions, but I don't know if she's watching this. She's not a member of this project. I want to make sure she's not removing relevant plot details. ^anemone│_projectors 22:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

She's been pretty brutal, I had to add some things back to Jack Branning's article. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As noted by this discussion, a high proportion of all the EastEnders character articles are weighed down with insignificant trivia, cruft, and generally extraneous info. When there are character histories that really shouldn't need to be more than 5-600 words long sitting at 2000 words in length, it's hard not to be brutal. I don't think I've removed any details I would consider especially pertinent or necessary, but obviously you're all free to revert any revisions I might make. There have been a fair number of UK soap opera articles considered for deletion recently, and I'd like to pitch in and help with bringing everything up to scratch. I don't want to tread on anyone's toes though. Frickative (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think she did an ok job on Tanya, but it's difficult to compare two revisions when so much is removed. ^anemone│_projectors 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Frickative, your help is greatly appreciated. Youve done a good job of reducing excessive and overly descriptive plot detail in a short space of time. Thanks for you help. Please feel free to carry on and dont feel your stepping on anyone's toes :) If there's anything that someone feels needs to be reincluded, it's all there in the page history, so it doesn't really matter.Gung adin ♦ 23:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Our next job is to give all articles the Pauline Fowler treatment. ;) ^anemone│_projectors 23:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get ahead fo ourselves! They all need cleaning up first! I'm glad to see everyone collecting references :) -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Family template.

Do we want {{EEMasoods}} or shall I delete it? ^anemone│_projectors 22:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete it. And could you delete my user page while you're at it? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? If you change your mind, I can restore it. But for now, it's gone. ^anemone│_projectors 23:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You've gone all red! :( ^anemone│_projectors 00:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone help this woman?

Eastenders addict appeals for episodes. Just thought we could do our bit for the community! ^anemone│_projectors 23:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Infoxboxes Part 2

I thought I'd bring it here, as Trampikey seems to be not responding to the message I left on his talk page. I'd like to stress once again think the Second Infoboxes are a worthwhile addition and would really make things look nicer. It shouldn't just be limited to past and/or long-standing characters. Conquistador2k6 29 January 2008 13:58 (UTC)

I agree, although I think infobox 2 is better for infoboxes with a lot of information, and the original one is expecially good for the minor character lists, but should be used for infoboxes with less information. ^anemone│_projectors 15:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It was my mistake, I thought Infobox 2 was just created for Pauline's article. I haven't been around for ages so the last I knew, it was created in someone's namespace for Pauline. My bad! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really work so well for minor characters, or those without any family, because the family drop down box still shows up regardless, but with nothing in it. If anyone knows how to make the blue family bar optional, then feel free to change it. More family relationships can be inlcuded too if that's what everyone wants.Gung adin 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It was originally created just for Pauline's article but was moved out of the userspace for general usage. I think I tried to eliminate the family bit when there's no family but I couldn't work it out, even though I managed to get quite good at ParserFunctions. ^anemone│_projectors 20:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Den and Angie Watts

Is this article really needed? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not in my opinion, at least not in the state that it's in. A good article could possibly be made out of it, and I did mean to try to clean it up after Flyer asked me last year (she's done good stuff with couple articles for US soaps), but it fell way down on my list of priorities due to multiple AFDs and bloody Pauline, and so I forgot all about it. Anyway, I wrote lots for their individual articles, and I didn't find it easy to get myself motivated to write it all out again/extend for them as a couple, because a lot would just be repetition. Also, the term supercouple is American, Ive never heard them referred to as that, except on here. But it's already been nominated for AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Den and Angie, it was kept with 11/2 majority, and I see that you were one of the keep voters Trampikey, lol. Maybe it could be redirected to Den? All those promo photos probably should be deleted regardless. Gung adin 19:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I was being more big-headed because someone called them not notable. It's a crap article really. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

They are notable but it's not needed. The individual articles has all the information, so this is just duplication. Redirect it. ^anemone│_projectors 20:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. :) -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been reinstated again! Cant get rid of this shitty page can we? :o) Gung adin 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the redirect. ^anemone│_projectors 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

WP:FICT has been revised. I noticed the Doctor Who project was informed so thought I should mention it here too. I haven't seen what's been changed so I don't know how it affects us. It's still under discussion though. ^anemone│_projectors 22:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We're working on OOU perspectives, and all the minor characters are in the minor lists, so I guess we're already conforming to it/working on it. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Selina/Selena

See Talk:Selina Branning#Spelling -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Full dates in plot summary

Does anyone else find their overuse annoying? Sometimes they read like a timeline. I dont think it's necessary to say on 1 January 2008, Ronnie went shopping. On 3 January 2008, Ronnie broke a nail. It stops the prose flowing. I think it's good to add a date in every so often, but not necessarily the full date, October 2007 will do, and not as often as is being done in some of these articles. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Do you prefer the full dates and high frequency that they being are used? Gung adin 00:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think months are fine for general things, but full dates should be used sometimes. ^anemone│_projectors 00:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles without OOU stuff

Can be tagged on the talk page by adding OOU=no to the EE project template. They'll be categorised in Category:EastEnders articles in need of real-world perspective. ^anemone│_projectors 23:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Collaberation

Now that Ronnie is cleaned up, who should be our next "collaberation"? I'd like to suggest Stacey Branning as there is far too much plot but also lots of references on the talk page. Any other suggestions? ^anemone│_projectors 21:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

May as well be her. They will hopefully all get a turn eventually anyway.Gung adin 21:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If we pick one article at a time, we'll get through them all eventually. I realise Ronnie's article isn't quite finished yet (plot not fully sourced) but that's a fairly minor thing. It's easier to focus on one article at a time, rather than trying to add OOU information on them all. Collecting links as we go along is a good thing though. I guess you're not taking the sandbox approach this time? ^anemone│_projectors 21:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I might do sandbox again, but i'm just reducing plot info at the moment and sorting sections. Cant believe the detail in it.Gung adin 22:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that doesn't require a sandbox :) ^anemone│_projectors 23:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Regarding the generic lead that we always use "so and so is a fictional character in the BBC soap EE...", I think we should do what we did to Pauline Fowler, and add onto the sentence "so and so is a fictional character in the BBC soap EE, a long-running serial drama about working class in the east end of London." Just so this clarifies what the series is about for those who dont already know. Can we? Gung adin 21:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, although I'm likely to forget if I ever start a new article, cos I know the lead off by heart and now I gotta learn a new one ;) ^anemone│_projectors 21:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind... but they can always click the link to EastEnders to see what it's about. I agree with AP, I'm likely to forget. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

We should also link East End of London. I've just done it for Ronnie Mitchell. ^anemone│_projectors 21:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

EE vandal caught out by forum members

Read all of this thread - it's funny. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Very good. Well done. I should block him, then see what he says ;) ^anemone│_projectors 23:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha!! oh dear, what a twat, his vandalism wasn't even creative, just shit. Reading some of those users slate wiki on there is amusing, because you'll notice from their other posts that they get a large proportion of their EE information from articles on here, and then pass it off as if they are the fountain of all EE knowledge. They should all just be grateful that the information is out them for them to poach, even the official site doesnt have our coverage. Even more amusing is how they call wikipedia inaccurate, when the Walford web character profiles are littered with errors. Our articles may not be perfect, but I would trust their accuracy more than Walford web. Clearly some are just bitter that their shitty edits have been removed, lol Gung adin 01:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Popularity

Can we use this as a source for characters' popularity with fans? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

looks fun, but I dont think it's a very reliable indication of popularity, just shows how popular the characters are to the users of that site. Or, in other words, it's not necessarily a representative sample of viewer opinion, which most published polls are supposed to be. We dont know how many times people vote or how many people vote. It could just be a small number voting regularly etc. That's my opinion anyway.--Gung adin 21:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting, and I voted, but we can't use it. "based on a game started in our Forum by Shamelessness" ;) ^anemone│_projectors 21:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh did you make it Trampikey? how cool! they are using the same image of Masood that we have :) Gung adin 21:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Christian isnt very popular is he? Gung adin 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make it, I just came up with the original game. That version was created by John, who runs Walford Web. The images have nothing to do with me, be uses them, though I have sent him pics of Hazel and Tamwar from Wikipedia because he doesn't have them on there at the moment... And I'm trying to get Vinnie eliminated. I hate him. Who did you vote for? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I voted for Roxy followed by Charlie, though Bradley wasn't far behind him. ^anemone│_projectors 22:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I always vote for Mo, then Vinnie. At first it was Mo, then Ben, but as everyone hates Ben he got eliminated really quickly! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised at some of the results. ^anemone│_projectors 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is Lauren doing so high up. She doesnt do anything! Gung adin 00:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

She's one of the surprises, but also Jase. I thought Abi might have been higher, but I guess Ln of x isn't on that site ;) ^anemone│_projectors 00:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Christian got knocked off :( Interesting that Gus, Mickey and Keith are also knocked off, and they're all leaving! ^anemone│_projectors 10:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Lauren's probably so High up b/c people are tired of her Guinea Pig-loving younger sister who hogs up all the screen time and acts about 6-8 (as opposed the 11-12 she is) The reason Lauren doesn't do anything is 'cause she hardly gets the chance to. I'm not too surprised about Gus, Keith or Ben to be honest. On a positive side, I'm pleased for Jase. He's one of Santer's best introductions. Conquistaor2k6 11:09 25 Febuaray (UTC)

I guess I'm in the minority about Jase. I just don't get him. Also, what's so good about Chelsea? ^anemone│_projectors 11:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Dot episode

It might interest you that the BBC have uploaded the script onto the BBC Writer's Room subsite ([1]). The script states that the episode is called "Pretty Baby....", which should save you typing out "single-hander episode" all the time. Am I correct in saying that this is the first EE episode to have a title? 79.76.113.132 (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. It's the first with a title that I know of... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's brilliant! ^anemone│_projectors 22:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I really want to create the article Pretty Baby.... but I don't think we should. ^anemone│_projectors 23:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It could fly if you had enough information about the song to do so. Conquistador2k6 11:09 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not the song, the episode. There's already an article about the song - Pretty Baby (song). ^anemone│_projectors 11:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Miller family

I have just discovered Miller family. Shall we redirect it to Keith? ^anemone│_projectors 18:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty pointless, but the "Miller family" link will have to be removed from all the infoboxes. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Removing links isn't a big deal, there was only four of them. I was aware that they would need to be removed. ^anemone│_projectors 23:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Family sections

I thought this was better brought up on the project page rather than by entering into a cycle of reversions. May I inquire why EastEnders articles persist in containing lists of family members within the body of articles, repeating information in bulk from the infoboxes? I know a number of soap opera articles do the same, but it was my understanding that the recent expansion of fictional character infoboxes to allow for the addition of far distant relatives was meant as a direct replacement for these lists, rather than duplication. Beyond which, the Manual of Style seems to advocate expressing information of this nature as prose rather than in list form, on the basis that any pertinent information will warrant a mention in the summation of the character, while those not relevant to the subject do not need detailing beyond a link in the infobox. Some of the shorter articles also look a little crufty, when they contain not a great deal beyond a paragraph or two of information, and then a page long list of family members as non-notable as second cousin four times removed. Basically I'd just like to know if the project has a valid reason for retention of this information twice over. It's my own inclination to add any family members not mentioned into the infobox, then remove the list sections during the course of general clean up of the articles - but I certainly don't want to edit war over it. Frickative (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I suppose it's not really necessary to list them twice now that we've extended the family field in the ibox. However, minor character lists dont use ibox2, so they will need to stay on the minor lists.Gung adin 00:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I might make a third ibox, which will be the orginal ibox with just the family section on the end. That way, it can be used on the minor lists for all those with family sections. I agree, it does look silly when there is barely any prose and just a huge list of family, like Harry Beale for instance.Gung adin 20:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you for clarifying the situation. Mostly I just didn't want to keep on expanding infobox family sections and removing the lists if it was going to be reverted without explanation. Back to editing! :) Frickative (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) this Template:Infobox EastEnders character 3 can now be used for the minor lists for those who have family. Ive tested it on Ayse Osman.Gung adin 21:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Should we have a section for half siblings on the infoboxes? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, lets just have every single field possible. Should we bother putting d for deaceased next to the dead?Gung adin 22:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're saying every field possible, I think we should split "aunts and uncles" and "grandparents". And no, we shouldn't bother - I never really knew why we had "(deceased)" in the first place... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

do you really think it's necessary to split aunts and uncles, cos wouldnt we then need to split great aunts and uncles and great great aunts and unles etc. but if that's what you prefer then it's cool with me.Gung adin 22:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If we're gonna split them, we should split them all. I've done one here: User:Trampikey/Ibox test -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to stop adding ibox2 and ibox3 to pages for now, then I'll update them both with the new "split" sections, then we need to go through and update all pages they are used on -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, I've done all the ibox3 ones and some of the ibox2s (Den, Peggy, Dennis, Sharon, Patrick, Charlie, Mo and Little Mo) but I'm nackered now so I'm going to bed. I prefer it with the gender split. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think we should list whether the character's relatives are deceased or not. The main soap opera template for others usually has it in brackets. And in response to Frickative, Originally only immediate family was added (Parents, Siblings, Spouse, Children) and if none where available, Misc Next of Kin was added. Then we added just about everything! Conquistador2k6 20:20 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Tense

I know it's my second query in just about as many days, but as with the Family issue, I'm not interested in entering into a lengthy cycle of reversions. It's simply my understanding that plot and storyline summary should be expressed in present tense, and real world, out of universe information as past tense - regardless of whether we're dealing with an ongoing soap or not. The WP:WAF guideline has consensus that this is the case, and I do believe that the Pauline Fowler article only achieved Featured status when the concession was made that plot information should indeed be changed to present tense. Although EastEnders has its own set timelne, the key is in the fact that it is still a fictional programme. In the same way that, for instance, in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, Luke Skywalker learns not learned that Darth Vader is his father, in the Easter 2008 episodes of EastEnders, Tanya buries not buried Max alive. The fact that EastEnders is ongoing is irrelevent to the fact that what happens in any given episode should be expressed in present tense, on the merit of the fact it is fictional. Frickative (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ian Beale's birthday is 1 March 1969, not "present". EastEnders has a set timeline which goes on in real time, and therefore things that have happened in past episodes are written in the past tense. Star Wars is a movie and is set over a fixed period of time. EastEnders isn't, it's ongoing and could go on forever, and not everything can be happening in the present. It doesn't make logical sense to write articles in present tense. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Although you obviously feel this is the case, consensus at WP:WAF opposes, and again, I'd point to the fact that it was necessary to change the Pauline Fowler article to comply with this in order for it to reach Featured status as precedent for using present tense to convey EastEnders storylines. Frickative (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:WAF obviously doesn't take soaps into account, and only mentions tense in passing, saying about it being "conventional" - what I'm saying is that soaps aren't conventional to the tense rules. Also, regarding Pauline Fowler - FA and normal articles are slightly different, and I opposed that too, it was only because other editors were so obsessed with getting it to FA that it was changed to present. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that at the end of the day it seems a petty thing to quibble over - truth be told past tense largely makes most sense to me as well - I was just under the impression that present was how it was supposed to be. I think for simplicity's sake, I'll just concern myself with OOU and real world perspective stuff for the time being :) Frickative (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's cool, have you seen "Operation: Cleanup" above? It shows which of the (current) characters needs an OOU section etc. You might find it helpful if you want to focus on that kind of stuff... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Tense is an issue that has been brought up numerous times, and we never manage to come to a decision on it. There are masses of conversations about it, mostly in the Pauline Fowler talk archives where after much arguing we finally had consensus to change, but we havent voted on a wider scale. Basically, we decided to change Pauline to present during the first unsuccessful FAR - at that time the article had a separate storyline section only detailing in-universe info. Trampikey opposed this all the way, but he always opposes everything at first, so no change there ;) When we merged the sections in with real world stuff for the second FAR, we were initially told that we could then keep everything in past, which pleased everyone. However, two editors on the second FAR kicked up a fuss about tense, one wanting past throughout (he merely didn't like that we used the word is instead of was in the opening sentence), and one complaninig that plot descrptions were not present. The latter then altered all the plot details to present. As a result, Pauline now flits between present and past, which in places reads very badly imo. Still, it passed FA like that, so it has to remain like that.

As far as the other EE character articles go, opinions on the project are divided. Of the three main contributers, Trampikey is obviously against present, AnemoneProjectors seems to be for, and I dont care either way, so long as it's consistent throughout and as long as OOU stuff remains in past, and "storylines" section remain in present (I dont like it flitting between the two like Pauline, and I dont think a sentence of plot description in an OOU section counts as it's being used for critical commentary). AnemoneProjectors did talk about changing the articles all to present, but this would take a huge effort, and there are more important things that need attention first imo. AnemoneProjectors changed Ronnie Mitchell to present, but that was because we discussed nominating it for GA. Basically, i'd say it's only worth changing the tense if we are planning on nominating it for GA or FA. There are guidelines on tense, but they are just guidelines and not policy, and so noone's obligated to change it. i'm not in any way suggesting that you shouldn't change it if you want to, just that it might not be worth the hassle :) Gung adin 22:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for such a detailed reply! Considering the sheer number of EastEnders articles, I agree it would be something of a Herculian task to change the tense each and every single one is written in. Waiting until they're ready for GA/FA assessment seems a much more pragmatic approach. And seeing as I've been skirting around editing EastEnders pages here and there for a couple of months now, I think that now I'm going to take the plunge and go ahead and add my name to the project participants list. Huzzah :) Frickative (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's excellent, welcome to the project, it will be great to have another opinion around here with all the decision making too :) Gung adin

Minor images part 10000

As far as I can see the images in these lists comply with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. It doesnt say anything there about why they arent acceptable for use in lists. But we're fighting with unreasonable editors, who twist policy to suit their own agenda. So we only have two options as far as I can see. We leave the minors image-free, or we sort through the more important characters on the lists and give them their own pages again. What should we do? Gung adin 17:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought we were allowed >5 images per page. Would it sort it our if we removed the "List of" from the article titles? The user who is removing them has twisted the policies around a lot and has an answer for bloody everything, however on their FAQ, it says something about "minor characters are minor, therefore not notable enough to have an image anyway" - but we could argue that in an in-universe way they were not minor (like Terry Rich etc, as they contributed a lot to the show) but in an OOU way they are not major enough to have their own pages. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

technically, we were never permitted or forbidden from having images on minor lists. What I discovered was that if there are under 5 images, they did not show up on "Fair-use overuse" lists, which were started by the "fair-use army" (their name, not mine). Therefore, I assumed that we could have 5 per page, but that no longer matters because they just go around to all list articles deleting them regardless. Arguing against it will be pointless. Users who linger around policy pages had a big old discussion about it last year, opposers were outnumbered (most editors didn't know anything about it to vote against), so i'm assuming they now have consensus to remove the images from lists etc. When they first started doing this, nothing was set in stone and we could just revert, but they will just get deletd again at some stage anyway. It's all open to interpretation, which is why we have the deletionists twisting to fit their beliefs.

I dont think it's worth it to keep fighting to be honest. Like you said, they have an answer for everything we argue for. Maybe we should think about doing a transwiki for all minor characters? They could all have their own image then and their own page.Gung adin 21:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is what I mean when I say that 90% of people on here a complete twats. What's a transwiki? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It means moving content from here to wikipedia's sister project, which is called Wikia (I think). Star Wars has one called wookipedia You can link from here to there and it works like any normal link, but as the content is not held on Wikipedia fairuse rules arent so strict and everything can be written in in-universe perspective. For instance, this list was transwikied [2] Me and AP discussed doing this when you were offline last year. We found an inactive EastEnders wiki already made, but AP decided he couldnt be bothered in the end.Gung adin 22:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the EE wikia [3] Gung adin 22:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been snitched on Trampikey lol. What do you want to do about these images then? cos they will be deleted soon, and without AP it will be difficult to get them back. Gung adin 18:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have most of the images saved. I don't like the wikia idea, it's tacky and full of ads and crap and seems like a lot of effort. I didn't revert Betacommand2's edits either - and this pisses me off: "None of the images meet our NFCC #8 policy." - like what they say is gospel. We're not gonna win against the image Nazis. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've saved all the images I didn't have, though there were only a few: Susie Price, Bev and Gina Williams, Jessie Moore, Dougie Briggs, Ros Thorne, Doreen Ellis, Anne Howes, Lilian Kominski, Jack Woodman, Lorraine Salter, Christine Pretis and Marie Davies. It's a shame I didn't do this before, when it was first restricted to 5 images per page, then I'd have them all! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

cool. Though not sure when we will ever be able to use the images again, unless we try and give some of them their own page. Maybe we could donate them all to walford web for their character lists. Atleast they wouldnt be wasted that way. Gung adin 20:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought but we probably wouldn't get credit and I've sent them images before that they haven't used... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I might put them in slideshow form on YouTube, but slower than my last slideshow! Then we both have access to them if we need them. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I love that first slideshow vid u did. I often watch that :) Gung adin 21:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest, when you've finished calling people "twats" and "Nazis" (always the end of the argument as soon as that happens) that you actually go and read the policies on non-free use; "like what they say is gospel" - yes, funnily enough, what the Wikimedia Foundation set as policy is gospel. In fact, I'll list the main items here, to save you the trouble;
- WP:NFCC#3a - "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary."
- WP:NFCC#8 - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic."
- WP:NFC#Images (5) - "For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television".
Mugshots in lists, unless the appearance of the character is important and is discussed in the text, just don't meet these policies. No-one is saying that non-free use is never justfied - sometimes it is - but in "List of minor characters in X" articles, it almost certainly won't be. BKNFCC 08:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just your interpretation of the policies though, and since when do we have to do what some randomer has deduced from the policies? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility isn't your strong point, is it? Fair use image galleries such as these type of character articles, music album discographies etc, clearly fail all three items linked above - there's no "interpretation" needed. Black Kite 09:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, i'm sure Trampikey didnt mean to be uncivil, sometimes things get said in frustration, but I dont really see the point of continuing this conversation like this. We've already decided just to leave them off the page, so you have got what you wanted. I understand that it's annoying when your edits are reverted Black Kite, but perhaps you can possibly understand that it is also a little frustrating for us, having taken the time to take the all these captures an upload them in good faith, and then just watch as they are deleted without any form of conversation and just a generic link to WP:NFCC, a policy that seems to be open to subjective interpretation. We can argue that the presence of certain images do significantly increase a readers understanding of the topic. We can argue that they were being used for critical commentary, in specific to show what the characters we are discussing look like. And we can argue that we were using a minimal amount. We reduced the number of images per page to 5 and under, giving only the more prominent characters an image (there used to be one for every character), though I agree that not all of the ones who had an image needed one.Gung adin 11:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I fully understand it's frustrating, and every admin who deals with fair-use has had this conversation multiple times. The reason it's frustrating, as I and many others have already suggested on policy talkpages, is that the main problem is that editors, especially new editors, aren't pointed towards WP:NFCC when they upload images, and thus there isn't anything that suggests that such images fall under different rules. Also, until the Foundation proclaimed on the issue in 2006, many articles had been stuffed with non-free images for a long time, and of course editors couldn't see what the problem was when they'd been there for so long. Where fair use images do clearly increase understanding, then there's obviously no problem with keeping them. However - and this argument has been bounced around many times, with the same result - it is generally accepted that image galleries of non-free images don't qualify, unless (as I said above) there is some overriding reason why the image is important to the reader. For example, a character whose appearance is important to the plot of the programme, and is discussed in the article. Hope this helps. Black Kite 14:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Update on family sections

Family sections are no more! I've converted all of them into the infoboxes. There is a plus side to this -every character who needed an infobox 2 or 3 now has one. Also, I've got rid of the non-gender-specific fields in the infoboxes, as they're redundat because I've been changing those as I go along as well. I can go to sleep now! (It's only taken three days bloody solid!) :D -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OOU sections

I didn't know that so many of the articles had them! It's great! Which one should we do next? I think Janine, as there's been LOADS of stuff about her returning for Frank Week, and Charlie Brooks has said in EVERY interview that she wants to go back for longer. There's also a lot discussing Janine's character. I might reduce her plot, then try and find some sources. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, though I still have Peggy, Pat, Dot and Stacey to finish. I get bored, then never seem to come back to them. But I suppose there's no rush. We'll make Janine the project's collaboration for the month shall we? 16:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced Janine's plot. It could probably do with a second opinion though, as I think I've been too harsh. You haven't started an OOU on Dot have you? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God!! Way harsh with Janine, but if it covers all the plot details i'm sure it will be fine, and I have never read Janine's page before, so i dont know what state it was in. I started Dot in my sandbox ages and ages ago, but moved onto something else and havent been back to it since.Gung adin 17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hope you dont mind, I extended it a little. There were a few things missing.Gung adin 14:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Billy needs to be mentioned but I don't know where! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, I just read it and saw you included Billy! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn damn damn!

I have the perfect audio sample for an article but my computer won't let me save it as anything apart from mp3! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[4] this is a really good sound editing package. Probably let you convert.Gung adin 23:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it worked. Image:Rickaaaaaaay.ogg - Bianca Jackson#"Rickaaaaaaay!" -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol, that's fab! We should get one for Peggy with get outta my pub! and Frank with Heeey or Pilchard, and Dot and OOOh I say.Gung adin 00:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try, but are Dot and Frank's catchphrases mentioned in their articles? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No. But I noticed there's an EE revealed about Frank on youtube with a segment about his dialect. I might watch it agaion at some point and add a paragraph to his page. It does currently talk about "dry slap" though.Gung adin 00:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Get outta my pub!.ogg - Peggy Mitchell#Characterisation and personality. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Love it :) Gung adin 18:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia talk archives