Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders

[[:|WT:WPEE
WT:EE]]

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Expand : All articles listed in Category:Stub-Class EastEnders articles and Category:EastEnders articles in need of real-world perspective
Other :
- Improve to FA standard: EastEnders: E20
- Improve to GA standard: EastEnders
- Maintain: List of EastEnders characters (2023), List of EastEnders characters, List of former EastEnders characters, List of awards and nominations received by EastEnders
- Get involved in the Wikipedia EastEnders Project.

Image

Which of these images should we use?

File:EE tv1.png

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Operation: Cleanup

The character articles are dire at the moment and need a lot of cleaning up. References and out of universe content needs to be added, but our main focus for the moment should be to clear up all the crap and drive lthat's been written on them, and condense irrelevant and long-winded material. I think we should assess all the articles and see which are in most need of cleaning - I've made a start :) -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article	Assessment/comments	OOU section?	Cleaned up?
Ian Beale	Needs updating, spell/grammar checking	Y
Dot Branning	Needs condensing, less sections, less on Pauline's death/Tomas, needs information on Jim's illness and what's happened since, needs referencing	N (has pop culture section)	Plot 2002-present majorly reduced 31 Jan [1] Rest of plot reduced 12 Feb [2]
Pat Evans	Needs condensing, less on Pat vs. Shirley/Joan Harris/Steven, Joan's past can go in the background section, needs references	N
Steven Beale	Plot condensing, needs references, would be really easy to write an OOU section about	N
Phil Mitchell	All the storylines could do with condesing, particularly recent stuff. The OOU stuff can now be extended with sources on Stella etc., "Jack Branning" section - what the fuck!?	Y
Peggy Mitchell	Needs referencing	N
Clare Bates	Needs references, OOU section	N
Lucy Beale	Steven's return needs condensing. It really wasnt about Lucy, so doesnt need to be so long. This article needs watching, as some Lucy fan is obsessed with reincluding every thing she's ever done! Needs references	N	Condensed 28/01/08
Peter Beale	Needs watching for fangirls - stuff about Ben and Steven needs to be vastly condensed, needs references, needs major cleanup/condensing	N
Ben Mitchell (EastEnders)	Plot condensing, MoS/grammar/spelling checks, needs OOU section, there must be loads of references to do with the Stella storyline and Charlie Jones's crap acting...	N
Billy Mitchell (EastEnders)	Needs references, OOU section would be easy with Down's syndrome stuff. Praise for Perry Fenwick: [3]	N
Charlie Slater	Needs references	N
Garry Hobbs	Needs references
Mo Harris		Y	OOU section added 16 Feb
Patrick Trueman
Minty Peterson
Gus Smith
Mickey Miller
Bobby Beale
Yolande Trueman
Jane Beale		N	Attempted storyline reduction, could possibly use more.
Darren Miller
Keith Miller (EastEnders)
Stacey Branning	Major plot condensing needed, several sources for an OOU section are on the talk page.		Plot condensed (by 14000 bytes!) 16 Feb [4]
Jean Slater
Dawn Swann
Honey Mitchell	Needs references/OOU section, Down's syndrome storyline would be easy to write an OOU section on - needs condensing	N
Bradley Branning	Stacey and Bradley stuff needs major condensing; interview:[5]
Chelsea Fox
Denise Wicks	Controversial storyline reference: [6]
Libby Fox
Tanya Branning	Storyline condensing - Oscar's birth doesn't warrant its own section, Rainie section needs to be reduced. Trivia section requires merging into the main text of the article. Praise for Jo Joyner's acting: [7]		Reduced 22 Jan, trivia moved to small OOU section.
Abi Branning	Remove trivial information, needs references		Plot condensed [8]
Lauren Branning	Major condensing. Probably a rewrite. An awful article.
Sean Slater	Rewrite in places. Remove the OR and POV throughout, particularly the personality section. Check for tone. Too many headers, too detailed, too many one sentence paragraphs. Major condensing. Sourcing, some quotes from Kazinsky are unsourced too, and an OOU section is needed. I think this is one of the worst.
Janet Mitchell		Y (has critism section)
Shirley Carter
Jay Brown	Article about stabbing storyline: [9]		Plot reduced 22 Jan.
Hazel Hobbs
Summer Swann	Possibly merge to minors.		Merged 22 Jan
Heather Trott
Zainab Masood		Y
Shabnam Masood		Y
Jase Dyer	Stuff about the gang storyline: [10][11]
Roxy Mitchell	Storyline condensing - too many sections, MoS/spelling/grammar checks needed		Plot substantially reduced on 22 Jan.[12]
Ronnie Mitchell	Major storyline condensing. Ridiculous amount of plot info for a character that isnt even a year old	Y	Plot substantially reduced on 21 Jan.[13] Further reduced on 1st Feb 2008. OOU section added
Tamwar Masood	Has OOU section. Nothing more to do here at the moment. Has barely been featured.	Y
Vinnie Monks	Fine at the moment.	Y
Masood Ahmed		Y
Jack Branning	Plot condensing, needs references and an OOU section; interview that can be harvested for quotes: [14]	Y	Plot condensed [15] Added 'Creation', 'Development' and 'Reception' sections, over a dozen references, and around 9kb OOU content, 24 Feb [16]
William Mitchell (EastEnders)	Should probably be merged into minors list		Merged 22 Jan.
Oscar Branning	Needs merging into the minors list in my opinion.		Merged 22 Jan.
Christian Clarke	Update with interview from here[17]. Good OOU stuff and comments from actor	Y
Sal Martin
Rachel Branning	If we can find some sources, she might be able to have her own page.
Rainie Cross

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Family template.

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Den and Angie Watts

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

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 didnt 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Selina/Selena

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

EE vandal caught out by forum members

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

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

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)[reply]

Popularity

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dot episode

It might interest you that the BBC have uploaded the script onto the BBC Writer's Room subsite ([18]). 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Miller family

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

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)[reply]