![]() | This page 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. |
After a recent request, I added WikiProject EastEnders to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 06:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The official EastEnders channel on YouTube currently has 295 clips uploaded. I'm wondering if we should include them as external links in the relevant articles, thought 295 is a lot... I just feel we should do something with them! Any ideas? AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 18:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Can I just get peoples thoughts on what storylines should qualify as having their own articles. Pre-existing examples include Sharongate and Get Johnny Week. I'm asking because I'm coming towards the end of the Watts material - having almost finished the family page (just need to add a few references I have still) and, after discussion with AnemoneProjectors, polishing up the Chrissie Watts article which should be completed by the end of this week. RE the issue of storylines, I was about to move onto a Butcher family page, but have thought it may be better to put together articles on the "Shannis" storyline and Den's death storyline given that the material is still very fresh in my mind. The Den's death storyline in particular I feel could do with its own article as it was rather convuluted, went on for almost a year, and had some very important implications for the show, coming at a time of perceived ratings decline, the departure of major characters, etc., etc. There is a lot of stuff there. But I know there is a bit of uncertainity regarding articles devoted to storylines, because they end up just rehashing so much plot. Familiae Watts ( talk) 08:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I have just created a separate section here to deal with developing the family pages. For instance, as I plan to move on to the Butchers next, does anyone have any pertinent sources and references - perhaps they could be listed here??? Familiae Watts ( talk) 08:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Ditto what I said in the thread above. GunGagdin Moan 15:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
NEW IDEA: perhaps we can merge my notion of having a "character" page for families, with what AP did for the Ferreria family. I was just thinking about the Slaters here, for example.... we could have a Slater family article, which would feature the character pages for Charlie (his page is not good) and then link to those members of the family that have their own pages (like Kat), plus adding some material about the workings of the family as a whole. In other words, envisaging a Slater family page to look like this: introduction to Slater family; links to independent character pages for certain mmembers (Kat, Little Mo, etc); then present Charlie Slater's character; perbhaps do same for Mo; then some facts about family dynamic (all female, etc.). Of course, problem with this is that we would have to determine who does and does not warrant an independent character page. Some families, like Watts, all have separate character pages and none of them deserve not to. But with families like the Mitchells it could include character bios/pages for minor re-occuring characters like Aunt Sal perhaps?? This may also help to remove a criticism of soap projects at Wiki (ie: that everything including kitchen sink gets its own article). I mean figures like Aunt Sal probably don't deserve tneir own separate page - but neither to be hid away in a list page. Perhaps this is the 1/2 way point??? Just a proposition. Familiae Watts ( talk) 09:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I know we try to keep storylines to a minimum but sometimes when a storyline is current it's difficult to know what is important and what isn't. So recently I've taken to summarising episodes as they are aired and then updating the articles concerned when I get online. This way, the articles can be cut down when people feel the need. I'd prefer to do it that way than miss something out, as sometimes storyline sections don't get updated for weeks. AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 14:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I recall reading in one of the guides somewhere that the present tense should be used in OOU sections for character articles when describing the character in question. Is this so even when the character is deceased. Again I recall reading that it should because the tv always exists in real-time - or something like that. So, the article for Dennis begins "Dennis Rickman is a character".... yet the article for Den goes "Den Watts was a character".
Which is the tense to use in relation to characters who are dead or no longer in the show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Familiae Watts ( talk • contribs) 11:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Should step family tages be added to the character info box? I'm thinking in particular of characters like Jane beale (but over the years it would also have affected characters like Pat, Dot, Laura, Chrissie, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Familiae Watts ( talk • contribs) 12:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This Tfd for the Coronation Street character infobox is probably pertinent to discussion, so I'll just drop the link here :) Frickative 15:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd go with just step parents and step children, if you got into step second cousins eight times removed then it would obviously be confusing, however in the case of Lucy Beale she has had three step-mothers? So would we list them all or the current one, Jane Alex250P ( talk) 15:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to revisit the discussion above on the notability of minor characters and not knowing when a character becomes major. Someone suggested changing the lists of minor characters by year to just lists of characters by year. I've been thinking about this and I think I really like the idea now. I've done an example of what the 2009 article would look like - User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders characters (2009) - and as you can see, it's not that different as there haven't been that many new main characters this year. Some years will obviously have more than others, but I don't think that would matter. I would also look into taking out some sections for characters with very short bios and move them into "others", as I have done for three characters in my example (Les Finnis, Sarah McCrae and Elaine Speight). What do people think? If consensus agrees with me, I'd set up all the pages in my userspace first so that they're all ready at the same time and then I'd go ahead and make all the necessary changes in one go. What do you think? AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 21:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I did it, and I worked so hard that just when I was about finished, my laptop overheated and switched itself off. I might start on a bit of cleanup tomorrow, in the form of moving very minor characters to the "others" tables and commenting out infoboxes where they're not really needed. AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 02:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I'd now like to make some suggestions for articles to be merged. I looked in Category:EastEnders stubs and at the to-do list for articles in need of expansion and would suggest the following be merged:
I didn't suggest these because I think they should be expandable per what Gungadin said above:
I haven't checked in Category:EastEnders articles in need of real-world perspective but there are probably more in there. Juley Smith springs to mind. Any objections? AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 13:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh by the way, I didn't put Wellard, Willy and Roly on the lists. Should I have? AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 19:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The EastEnders website has been updated, and all the character profiles on the site have been moved. This hasn't broken our external links as the old links redirect to the new ones. But should we try to update them all or leave them as they are? We would have to create a new template while we do it though, and then redirect the old one to it when we've finished. AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 16:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I've today created {{ EEcharlink2}} for the updated character links. I've only changed the ones that weren't redirecting, which were ones whose names have changed or they had the wrong name in the old URL. All the present characters, plus Archie, have pages on the new site. Most of them are redirecting so there's no need to change them. Older characters should all redirect to the characters page on the EastEnders website, and I'm hoping that they will be creating pages for them. If we find that they're not doing that, we'll have to remove the external links from older characters, which seems such a shame. I haev a feeling they're not going to bother. As for other dead links, I've looked for a couple in archive sites, but it seems that they haven't been archived, so we may need to find alternate sources when we've referenced something to the BBC site. For news items, this shouldn't be a problem, as often quotes given in the news articles are put on other sites, but interviews are unlikely to be duplicated. I don't know what to do about that. AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 21:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I found some free images on Flickr and have uploaded them to Commons, they are in commons:Category:EastEnders. Cool huh? Shame about the person in the picture of the Vic! There are three other photos that have people in them, so before I upload them I thought I'd ask if we want them uploaded. [2] [3] [4] AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 17:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know of an episode archive that happens to list writer/director info? The BBC only goes back a few years as far as I can see, which isn't very helpful. Without even being able to fill in the credits parameter, it often seems pointless using the cite episode template for EastEnders, given that the episodes don't have titles or series numbers or any of that business. Cheers! Frickative 23:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I redesigned the main project page. Who likes it? I copied the Doctor Who one, basically. (Was gonna ask something else but forgot now.) AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 21:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
"Status" should come back. It is part of soap culture. I blame AnonomeProjectors for draining tradition out this WikiProject!! No offence.-- Archie Mitchell ( talk) 23:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
'It's part of soap culture', well I've never heard that one before. Although, why did we feel the need to remove it again? Alex250P ( talk) 00:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Who thinks we should have a storyline article for this? I do. It's just that I'm sure there is quite a bit of real-world information that could be included but it wouldn't really fit into Archie's article because after his death, the investigation isn't very important to his personal storyline, and it would be good to have all the information in one place due to the number of characters the storyline is involving. However, I tried starting it in my userspace and didn't know what to write. AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 22:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh well then use suspects who were questioned/arrested or even ones who would just be a suspect e.g Ronnie,Peggy,Phil,Bradley,Ian Brianwazere 22:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes exactly W93 that is what i meant by suggestion it really would be interesting to have Brianwazere 22:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
My initial thought here was that as with "The Secret Mitchell" (which I still think would be better off merged...) the whole storyline could probably be contained in the Archie character article, but reading the discussion, there are good points raised in favour of a separate article. Do I remember rightly that the revelation will tie in with the 25th anniversary and live episode? If so, there will almost certainly be plentiful sources for inclusion that would be more pertinent to a separate article, and possibly tenuous in the character article. I think it's a good idea. Frickative 16:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Well I yhink that this who killed Archie should go ahead but maybe after the storyline concludes in February becaue it will give us enough time to get some reliable sources to include Brianwazere 22:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh ya well it is a good source to have:) Brianwazere 21:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I think a seperate page would be an excellent idea, especially as the Live Episode's storyline is the reveal of Archie's killer and EastEnders have never had a live episode. Alex250P ( talk) 00:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone has created Who Killed Archie?. I disagree with its creation, at least at this stage. What should we do? AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 14:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Sources | |
---|---|
Source | Content |
"Weekly Top 30 Programmes - BBC1 w/e 27 Dec 2009". Broadcasters' Audience Research Board. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | 11.67 million viewers watched the Christmas episode, 8.80m the Boxing Day episode and 10.15m the Bank Holiday episode. |
Carter, Helen (27 December 2009). "Familiarity breeds success for BBC TV at Christmas". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | Most watched programme on Christmas Day. |
Sweney, Mark (29 December 2009). "The play's the thing for 900,000 Hamlet viewers on Boxing Day". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | Most watched programme on Boxing Day. |
Green, Kris (29 December 2009). "'Enders edges Corrie in Bank Holiday ratings". Digital Spy. Retrieved 17 January 2010. | Most watched soap on Bank Holiday. |
"Fans stew on Archie mystery". The Sun. News Group Newspapers. 31 December 2009. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | Killer to be revealed on 19 Feb, in live episode for 25th anniversary. |
Banks-Smith, Nancy (28 December 2009). "EastEnders, Victoria Wood's Midlife Christmas, Cranford, Victorian Farm Christmas, Nan's Christmas Carol". Retrieved 16 January 2010. | Review comparing killing to murder(s) of Den Watts, calling it a Citizen Cane rip-off. |
Hudson, Polly (1 January 2010). "Soap won't wash second time around". The Mirror. Trinity Mirror. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | Another review comparing killing to Den's murder. |
Grimes, Andrew (29 December 2009). "Opinion: Andrew Grimes". Manchester Evening News. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | Very scathing review of Christmas episode. |
Gibson, John (4 January 2010). "John Gibson: Just pad the hoof, dear, follow me". Edinburgh Evening News. Johnston Press. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | Negative review of murder discovery episode. |
McDermott, Nick (30 December 2009). "TV soaps give Lucas and Maisie growing appeal among parents choosing baby names". Daily Mail. Associated Newspapers. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | "EastEnders arch-villain Archie Mitchell could be behind the name’s rise to 17th in the list, which reveals the top 100 names from a national survey by parenting club Bounty of 580,000 babies born in 2009." |
Buxton, Olivia (6 January 2010).
"I'm just a wild child at heart.. I can't help it".
Trinity Mirror. Retrieved 16 January 2010. {{
cite web}} : Text "work
The Mirror" ignored (
help)
|
Rita Simmons on not thinking Roxy did it. |
Green, Kris (30 December 2009). "Glynis Barber (Glenda Mitchell, 'EastEnders')". Digital Spy. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | Glynis Barber on not thinking Glenda did it. |
"EastEnder Charlie Clements on Bradley's departure!". What's on TV. IPC Media. 14 January 2010. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | Charlie Clements on not wanting Bradley to have done it. |
Kilkelly, Daniel (14 January 2010). "'Enders killer 'won't know until live ep'". Digital Spy. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | Actor playing the killer won't know until the live episode. |
WP:MOSFICT says "Another common type of template, succession boxes, should not be used to describe in-universe relationships in articles about fictional entities." I've always known this but never done anything about it. We should remove succession boxes for Queen Vic landlords and Walford GPs. I thought I'd bring it up here before actually doing it, though. Everyone agree? AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 15:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Trampikey, is right! When I used Wikipedia for research I felt it very useful to track down things. I think that your being to restrictive and litigous than more leniant. We need to relent! By the way, I think you should put it back because you have not informed Trampikey and it is annoying! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archie Mitchell ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I honestly don't see what we gain from them being removed, I thought they were a cracking little idea but seen as though you've already made a decision, but I think Familiae Watts' idea is brilliant, maybe just an extra tab in the infobox saying something like Owner of the Queen Vic (1995-2009) etc. Alex250P ( talk) 23:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip 02:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Over the last three months I have been working hard on redoing the Chrissie Watts article. I plan on submitting the article for GA status sometime in the next few days, but would appreciate any comments on its state and whether or not it complies with areas of the GA criteria. After that I do intend (rather quickly) on submitting it for FA status; so comments/opinions directed towards that end would also be welcomed. Just to remind anyone of the criteria, the article needs to be 1) well-written; 2) factual/referenced; 3) not to contain original research; 4) images properly labelled. Checking the articles against these points would be immensely helpful. Thapnks all! :) (PS: happy new year!) Familiae Watt§ ( talk) 11:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
So just going to use this space to keep the project updated on what's happening with this article. I've taken all the advice and much appreciated criticisms from Frickative, AP, and Gungadin regarding the Chrissie Watts article and will begin reframing it in the next few days, with a view to having it all done by the end of next week. I know Frickative, you only go 1/3 of the way through, but I can see how much of your criticisms apply throughout so will implement changes to the rest of the article and then would appreciate your once-over again! ;)
Unfortunately there has been a delay because, as I mentioned, I foolishly loost all the sources and references I had gathered for the article (they were bookmarked and I forgot to save it before I formatted the computer). I had about 30 of them and much to my consternation cannot recover quite a few, no matter how hard I search. On the upside, I have found about 3 or 4 new ones which is good (amazed at how much there is on Chrissie Watts out there!!) Anyway, need to go through them and reaquaint myself with the materail after a month away. Familiae Watt§ ( talk) 05:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Not to sure if I am going to be able to get the personality section done today.... the first part just needs a bit of reworking and expanding; the second, on Chrissie's style/fashion will porbably have to be re-written as I have since found 3 very good sources talking about Chrissie's style (one from the show's make-up artist and costume designer at the time). Familiae Watt§ ( talk) 22:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I know we said we'd review characters after they've been in the show for six months, but I'm seriously considering moving the Glenda Mitchell section in List of EastEnders characters (2010) to a separate article as it's taking up a LOT of space and we have plenty of OOU information that can be split into "creation" and "personality" sections. I even did a version in my userspace. What do others think? I also considered Zsa Zsa as I have several references that I haven't used in either the list section or in EastEnders: E20, but I think it wouldn't be right to separate Zsa Zsa without separating Leon and Fatboy as well. Maybe I'll see if I can develop them in my userspace too and see what I can come up with. AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 23:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with AnemoneProjectors, it's obvious she's going to be heavily involved in storylines in the near future and already has a great deal of references and content already, especially with the introduction of Danny, I think she should be moved. Alex250P ( talk) 00:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Can I just ask for one exception? If a new character is announced and there is an interesting fact, can we separate it and nominte it for DYK, like I did for Adam Best (EastEnders) (who even now hasn't been in it for 6 months)? We could always merge it back after it's been listed if we really want to! I just really like DYK!
I just noticed that Digital Spy has Glenda as departing in yesterday's episode. [9] However, as she's said she's returning for a couple of episodes in the spring, should we treat her as a recurring character rather than a regular? AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 21:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so, as I've said I lost a fair few references when I formatted my computer at the beginning of this month - it was actually really miffing me as I was trying to fix up the Chrissie Watts article; so I decided to go back through a few old newspapers I saved from the 20th anniversary year and also did a couple of hours research at my university library which has newspapers/magazines on microfilm. I knew what I was looking for so it didn't take long (after 5 years at uni I have sharply honned research skills!!) However, most of the articles I have found do not have online url links obviously; is it still fine to reference the articles to the newspapers/mags (including page numbers) or should I try to find the articles on highbeam or something? Familiae Watt§ ( talk) 13:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this just bugs me, the fact that Kathy is listed as a Mitchell.... now we know the surname of Kathy's most recent husband, should she perhaps be renamed to Kathy Sullivan?? I know she was never referred to that directly on-screen, but people could still search for Kathy "Mitchell" or Beale, and the fictional logic in-show would surely mean she was known as Kathy Sullivan - unless it was specifically addressed on-screen that she didn't take her 3rd husband's name? Familiae Watt§ ( talk) 20:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, perhaps we can agree to do something about the really major characters to ensure they are correctly titled. So I am thinking:
Sharon Rickman - Sharon Watts
Kat Moon - Kat Slater
Kathy Mitchell - Kathy Beale (??)
Little Mo Mitchell - Little Mo Slater
Some of the others, I feel can perhaps be left alone as there may not be as much consensus regarding their names, like: Lisa Fowler; Mel Owen; Irene Raymond, etc. Pat Evans should remain as Pat Evans?? I've always thought of her as Pat Butcher (but I still think of Dot as Dot Cotton not Branning) but I understand she has been an Evans' longer.
I was thinking the same thing about the Kat and Alfie articles.... I'll help with the Kat article. Familiae Watt§ ( talk) 04:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Comments and criticisms appreciated - see further on talk page: [10]. ✽ Familiae Watt§ (TALK) 07:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Pauline Fowler is our only FA and this year would be the perfect opportunity to get it listed on the front page. 19 February is the perfect date as it is the 25th anniversary of the show and the 25th anniversary of the character's first appearance, which gives it more points. An alternative date is 26 February, the anniversary of Wendy Richard's death. However, FA nomination looks VERY complicated as they only allow 5 to be nominated at a time though you can replace the one with the lowest points if you think yours has higher points. I think we get 2 points for it being promoted more than 2 years ago, 2 points for being a 25th anniversary, probably 1 point for "contributor history" and maybe more. At least 5 points gives it a good chance, but I'm scared to nominate it because it means removing another nomination. I'm so confused! But now is the time for nomination! AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 20:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Update: I have nominated Pauline Fowler for TFA: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#February 26. AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 19:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Why do the infobox headings have "EastEnders character" above the image and the character name below? Wouldn't it be better the other way around? Bradley0110 ( talk) 13:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this worth an article, do we think, or will there be too much overlap with the eventual "Who Killed Archie?" article for it to be worth it? I think I'm finally getting the hang of putting together GA-class episode articles, but if there's going to be excessive duplication, then there's no point. Good opportunity for a DYK, though ;) Frickative 18:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh no! I just realised I already did this >>> History of EastEnders#25th anniversary!!! I completely forgot about it. An article about the 25th anniversary would be spun-off from that and not eligible for DYK :( - unless... it wasn't copied from there? Wah! It's too hard anyway! AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 01:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I definitely think that now we know the live episode got the highest viewings for about 7 years we either need a live episode or a Who Killed Archie article. Alex250P ( talk) 16:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI both articles have gone live - EastEnders Live and Who Killed Archie?. AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 19:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that you guys are all doing such a fantastic job with the project. Sorry am not around as much as I used to be, but it's lovely to see the project is in such good hands and that all the hard work put in over the years is being expanded on. I just saw Wellard...amazing transformation. GunGagdin Moan 00:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh that sounds fantastic, and can I just say aswell that by looking at all the EastEnders articles and ones from other soaps its clear that EastEnders are the best prepared and they are always up to date, so I would have to agree in saying that ye are all doing fantastic jobs and the articles and i can't wait to see Paulinr Fowler's article on the front page it will looking amazing and ye deserve it:D:D Brianwazere 12:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I second that, some of the effort you guys show is incredible, and I try to help wherever I can lol Alex250P ( talk) 14:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.
Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.
![]() | This page 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. |
After a recent request, I added WikiProject EastEnders to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 06:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The official EastEnders channel on YouTube currently has 295 clips uploaded. I'm wondering if we should include them as external links in the relevant articles, thought 295 is a lot... I just feel we should do something with them! Any ideas? AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 18:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Can I just get peoples thoughts on what storylines should qualify as having their own articles. Pre-existing examples include Sharongate and Get Johnny Week. I'm asking because I'm coming towards the end of the Watts material - having almost finished the family page (just need to add a few references I have still) and, after discussion with AnemoneProjectors, polishing up the Chrissie Watts article which should be completed by the end of this week. RE the issue of storylines, I was about to move onto a Butcher family page, but have thought it may be better to put together articles on the "Shannis" storyline and Den's death storyline given that the material is still very fresh in my mind. The Den's death storyline in particular I feel could do with its own article as it was rather convuluted, went on for almost a year, and had some very important implications for the show, coming at a time of perceived ratings decline, the departure of major characters, etc., etc. There is a lot of stuff there. But I know there is a bit of uncertainity regarding articles devoted to storylines, because they end up just rehashing so much plot. Familiae Watts ( talk) 08:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I have just created a separate section here to deal with developing the family pages. For instance, as I plan to move on to the Butchers next, does anyone have any pertinent sources and references - perhaps they could be listed here??? Familiae Watts ( talk) 08:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Ditto what I said in the thread above. GunGagdin Moan 15:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
NEW IDEA: perhaps we can merge my notion of having a "character" page for families, with what AP did for the Ferreria family. I was just thinking about the Slaters here, for example.... we could have a Slater family article, which would feature the character pages for Charlie (his page is not good) and then link to those members of the family that have their own pages (like Kat), plus adding some material about the workings of the family as a whole. In other words, envisaging a Slater family page to look like this: introduction to Slater family; links to independent character pages for certain mmembers (Kat, Little Mo, etc); then present Charlie Slater's character; perbhaps do same for Mo; then some facts about family dynamic (all female, etc.). Of course, problem with this is that we would have to determine who does and does not warrant an independent character page. Some families, like Watts, all have separate character pages and none of them deserve not to. But with families like the Mitchells it could include character bios/pages for minor re-occuring characters like Aunt Sal perhaps?? This may also help to remove a criticism of soap projects at Wiki (ie: that everything including kitchen sink gets its own article). I mean figures like Aunt Sal probably don't deserve tneir own separate page - but neither to be hid away in a list page. Perhaps this is the 1/2 way point??? Just a proposition. Familiae Watts ( talk) 09:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I know we try to keep storylines to a minimum but sometimes when a storyline is current it's difficult to know what is important and what isn't. So recently I've taken to summarising episodes as they are aired and then updating the articles concerned when I get online. This way, the articles can be cut down when people feel the need. I'd prefer to do it that way than miss something out, as sometimes storyline sections don't get updated for weeks. AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 14:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I recall reading in one of the guides somewhere that the present tense should be used in OOU sections for character articles when describing the character in question. Is this so even when the character is deceased. Again I recall reading that it should because the tv always exists in real-time - or something like that. So, the article for Dennis begins "Dennis Rickman is a character".... yet the article for Den goes "Den Watts was a character".
Which is the tense to use in relation to characters who are dead or no longer in the show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Familiae Watts ( talk • contribs) 11:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Should step family tages be added to the character info box? I'm thinking in particular of characters like Jane beale (but over the years it would also have affected characters like Pat, Dot, Laura, Chrissie, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Familiae Watts ( talk • contribs) 12:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This Tfd for the Coronation Street character infobox is probably pertinent to discussion, so I'll just drop the link here :) Frickative 15:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd go with just step parents and step children, if you got into step second cousins eight times removed then it would obviously be confusing, however in the case of Lucy Beale she has had three step-mothers? So would we list them all or the current one, Jane Alex250P ( talk) 15:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to revisit the discussion above on the notability of minor characters and not knowing when a character becomes major. Someone suggested changing the lists of minor characters by year to just lists of characters by year. I've been thinking about this and I think I really like the idea now. I've done an example of what the 2009 article would look like - User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders characters (2009) - and as you can see, it's not that different as there haven't been that many new main characters this year. Some years will obviously have more than others, but I don't think that would matter. I would also look into taking out some sections for characters with very short bios and move them into "others", as I have done for three characters in my example (Les Finnis, Sarah McCrae and Elaine Speight). What do people think? If consensus agrees with me, I'd set up all the pages in my userspace first so that they're all ready at the same time and then I'd go ahead and make all the necessary changes in one go. What do you think? AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 21:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I did it, and I worked so hard that just when I was about finished, my laptop overheated and switched itself off. I might start on a bit of cleanup tomorrow, in the form of moving very minor characters to the "others" tables and commenting out infoboxes where they're not really needed. AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 02:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I'd now like to make some suggestions for articles to be merged. I looked in Category:EastEnders stubs and at the to-do list for articles in need of expansion and would suggest the following be merged:
I didn't suggest these because I think they should be expandable per what Gungadin said above:
I haven't checked in Category:EastEnders articles in need of real-world perspective but there are probably more in there. Juley Smith springs to mind. Any objections? AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 13:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh by the way, I didn't put Wellard, Willy and Roly on the lists. Should I have? AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 19:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The EastEnders website has been updated, and all the character profiles on the site have been moved. This hasn't broken our external links as the old links redirect to the new ones. But should we try to update them all or leave them as they are? We would have to create a new template while we do it though, and then redirect the old one to it when we've finished. AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 16:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I've today created {{ EEcharlink2}} for the updated character links. I've only changed the ones that weren't redirecting, which were ones whose names have changed or they had the wrong name in the old URL. All the present characters, plus Archie, have pages on the new site. Most of them are redirecting so there's no need to change them. Older characters should all redirect to the characters page on the EastEnders website, and I'm hoping that they will be creating pages for them. If we find that they're not doing that, we'll have to remove the external links from older characters, which seems such a shame. I haev a feeling they're not going to bother. As for other dead links, I've looked for a couple in archive sites, but it seems that they haven't been archived, so we may need to find alternate sources when we've referenced something to the BBC site. For news items, this shouldn't be a problem, as often quotes given in the news articles are put on other sites, but interviews are unlikely to be duplicated. I don't know what to do about that. AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 21:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I found some free images on Flickr and have uploaded them to Commons, they are in commons:Category:EastEnders. Cool huh? Shame about the person in the picture of the Vic! There are three other photos that have people in them, so before I upload them I thought I'd ask if we want them uploaded. [2] [3] [4] AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 17:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know of an episode archive that happens to list writer/director info? The BBC only goes back a few years as far as I can see, which isn't very helpful. Without even being able to fill in the credits parameter, it often seems pointless using the cite episode template for EastEnders, given that the episodes don't have titles or series numbers or any of that business. Cheers! Frickative 23:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I redesigned the main project page. Who likes it? I copied the Doctor Who one, basically. (Was gonna ask something else but forgot now.) AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 21:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
"Status" should come back. It is part of soap culture. I blame AnonomeProjectors for draining tradition out this WikiProject!! No offence.-- Archie Mitchell ( talk) 23:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
'It's part of soap culture', well I've never heard that one before. Although, why did we feel the need to remove it again? Alex250P ( talk) 00:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Who thinks we should have a storyline article for this? I do. It's just that I'm sure there is quite a bit of real-world information that could be included but it wouldn't really fit into Archie's article because after his death, the investigation isn't very important to his personal storyline, and it would be good to have all the information in one place due to the number of characters the storyline is involving. However, I tried starting it in my userspace and didn't know what to write. AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 22:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh well then use suspects who were questioned/arrested or even ones who would just be a suspect e.g Ronnie,Peggy,Phil,Bradley,Ian Brianwazere 22:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes exactly W93 that is what i meant by suggestion it really would be interesting to have Brianwazere 22:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
My initial thought here was that as with "The Secret Mitchell" (which I still think would be better off merged...) the whole storyline could probably be contained in the Archie character article, but reading the discussion, there are good points raised in favour of a separate article. Do I remember rightly that the revelation will tie in with the 25th anniversary and live episode? If so, there will almost certainly be plentiful sources for inclusion that would be more pertinent to a separate article, and possibly tenuous in the character article. I think it's a good idea. Frickative 16:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Well I yhink that this who killed Archie should go ahead but maybe after the storyline concludes in February becaue it will give us enough time to get some reliable sources to include Brianwazere 22:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh ya well it is a good source to have:) Brianwazere 21:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I think a seperate page would be an excellent idea, especially as the Live Episode's storyline is the reveal of Archie's killer and EastEnders have never had a live episode. Alex250P ( talk) 00:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone has created Who Killed Archie?. I disagree with its creation, at least at this stage. What should we do? AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 14:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Sources | |
---|---|
Source | Content |
"Weekly Top 30 Programmes - BBC1 w/e 27 Dec 2009". Broadcasters' Audience Research Board. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | 11.67 million viewers watched the Christmas episode, 8.80m the Boxing Day episode and 10.15m the Bank Holiday episode. |
Carter, Helen (27 December 2009). "Familiarity breeds success for BBC TV at Christmas". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | Most watched programme on Christmas Day. |
Sweney, Mark (29 December 2009). "The play's the thing for 900,000 Hamlet viewers on Boxing Day". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | Most watched programme on Boxing Day. |
Green, Kris (29 December 2009). "'Enders edges Corrie in Bank Holiday ratings". Digital Spy. Retrieved 17 January 2010. | Most watched soap on Bank Holiday. |
"Fans stew on Archie mystery". The Sun. News Group Newspapers. 31 December 2009. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | Killer to be revealed on 19 Feb, in live episode for 25th anniversary. |
Banks-Smith, Nancy (28 December 2009). "EastEnders, Victoria Wood's Midlife Christmas, Cranford, Victorian Farm Christmas, Nan's Christmas Carol". Retrieved 16 January 2010. | Review comparing killing to murder(s) of Den Watts, calling it a Citizen Cane rip-off. |
Hudson, Polly (1 January 2010). "Soap won't wash second time around". The Mirror. Trinity Mirror. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | Another review comparing killing to Den's murder. |
Grimes, Andrew (29 December 2009). "Opinion: Andrew Grimes". Manchester Evening News. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | Very scathing review of Christmas episode. |
Gibson, John (4 January 2010). "John Gibson: Just pad the hoof, dear, follow me". Edinburgh Evening News. Johnston Press. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | Negative review of murder discovery episode. |
McDermott, Nick (30 December 2009). "TV soaps give Lucas and Maisie growing appeal among parents choosing baby names". Daily Mail. Associated Newspapers. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | "EastEnders arch-villain Archie Mitchell could be behind the name’s rise to 17th in the list, which reveals the top 100 names from a national survey by parenting club Bounty of 580,000 babies born in 2009." |
Buxton, Olivia (6 January 2010).
"I'm just a wild child at heart.. I can't help it".
Trinity Mirror. Retrieved 16 January 2010. {{
cite web}} : Text "work
The Mirror" ignored (
help)
|
Rita Simmons on not thinking Roxy did it. |
Green, Kris (30 December 2009). "Glynis Barber (Glenda Mitchell, 'EastEnders')". Digital Spy. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | Glynis Barber on not thinking Glenda did it. |
"EastEnder Charlie Clements on Bradley's departure!". What's on TV. IPC Media. 14 January 2010. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | Charlie Clements on not wanting Bradley to have done it. |
Kilkelly, Daniel (14 January 2010). "'Enders killer 'won't know until live ep'". Digital Spy. Retrieved 16 January 2010. | Actor playing the killer won't know until the live episode. |
WP:MOSFICT says "Another common type of template, succession boxes, should not be used to describe in-universe relationships in articles about fictional entities." I've always known this but never done anything about it. We should remove succession boxes for Queen Vic landlords and Walford GPs. I thought I'd bring it up here before actually doing it, though. Everyone agree? AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 15:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Trampikey, is right! When I used Wikipedia for research I felt it very useful to track down things. I think that your being to restrictive and litigous than more leniant. We need to relent! By the way, I think you should put it back because you have not informed Trampikey and it is annoying! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archie Mitchell ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I honestly don't see what we gain from them being removed, I thought they were a cracking little idea but seen as though you've already made a decision, but I think Familiae Watts' idea is brilliant, maybe just an extra tab in the infobox saying something like Owner of the Queen Vic (1995-2009) etc. Alex250P ( talk) 23:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip 02:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Over the last three months I have been working hard on redoing the Chrissie Watts article. I plan on submitting the article for GA status sometime in the next few days, but would appreciate any comments on its state and whether or not it complies with areas of the GA criteria. After that I do intend (rather quickly) on submitting it for FA status; so comments/opinions directed towards that end would also be welcomed. Just to remind anyone of the criteria, the article needs to be 1) well-written; 2) factual/referenced; 3) not to contain original research; 4) images properly labelled. Checking the articles against these points would be immensely helpful. Thapnks all! :) (PS: happy new year!) Familiae Watt§ ( talk) 11:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
So just going to use this space to keep the project updated on what's happening with this article. I've taken all the advice and much appreciated criticisms from Frickative, AP, and Gungadin regarding the Chrissie Watts article and will begin reframing it in the next few days, with a view to having it all done by the end of next week. I know Frickative, you only go 1/3 of the way through, but I can see how much of your criticisms apply throughout so will implement changes to the rest of the article and then would appreciate your once-over again! ;)
Unfortunately there has been a delay because, as I mentioned, I foolishly loost all the sources and references I had gathered for the article (they were bookmarked and I forgot to save it before I formatted the computer). I had about 30 of them and much to my consternation cannot recover quite a few, no matter how hard I search. On the upside, I have found about 3 or 4 new ones which is good (amazed at how much there is on Chrissie Watts out there!!) Anyway, need to go through them and reaquaint myself with the materail after a month away. Familiae Watt§ ( talk) 05:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Not to sure if I am going to be able to get the personality section done today.... the first part just needs a bit of reworking and expanding; the second, on Chrissie's style/fashion will porbably have to be re-written as I have since found 3 very good sources talking about Chrissie's style (one from the show's make-up artist and costume designer at the time). Familiae Watt§ ( talk) 22:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I know we said we'd review characters after they've been in the show for six months, but I'm seriously considering moving the Glenda Mitchell section in List of EastEnders characters (2010) to a separate article as it's taking up a LOT of space and we have plenty of OOU information that can be split into "creation" and "personality" sections. I even did a version in my userspace. What do others think? I also considered Zsa Zsa as I have several references that I haven't used in either the list section or in EastEnders: E20, but I think it wouldn't be right to separate Zsa Zsa without separating Leon and Fatboy as well. Maybe I'll see if I can develop them in my userspace too and see what I can come up with. AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 23:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with AnemoneProjectors, it's obvious she's going to be heavily involved in storylines in the near future and already has a great deal of references and content already, especially with the introduction of Danny, I think she should be moved. Alex250P ( talk) 00:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Can I just ask for one exception? If a new character is announced and there is an interesting fact, can we separate it and nominte it for DYK, like I did for Adam Best (EastEnders) (who even now hasn't been in it for 6 months)? We could always merge it back after it's been listed if we really want to! I just really like DYK!
I just noticed that Digital Spy has Glenda as departing in yesterday's episode. [9] However, as she's said she's returning for a couple of episodes in the spring, should we treat her as a recurring character rather than a regular? AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 21:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so, as I've said I lost a fair few references when I formatted my computer at the beginning of this month - it was actually really miffing me as I was trying to fix up the Chrissie Watts article; so I decided to go back through a few old newspapers I saved from the 20th anniversary year and also did a couple of hours research at my university library which has newspapers/magazines on microfilm. I knew what I was looking for so it didn't take long (after 5 years at uni I have sharply honned research skills!!) However, most of the articles I have found do not have online url links obviously; is it still fine to reference the articles to the newspapers/mags (including page numbers) or should I try to find the articles on highbeam or something? Familiae Watt§ ( talk) 13:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this just bugs me, the fact that Kathy is listed as a Mitchell.... now we know the surname of Kathy's most recent husband, should she perhaps be renamed to Kathy Sullivan?? I know she was never referred to that directly on-screen, but people could still search for Kathy "Mitchell" or Beale, and the fictional logic in-show would surely mean she was known as Kathy Sullivan - unless it was specifically addressed on-screen that she didn't take her 3rd husband's name? Familiae Watt§ ( talk) 20:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, perhaps we can agree to do something about the really major characters to ensure they are correctly titled. So I am thinking:
Sharon Rickman - Sharon Watts
Kat Moon - Kat Slater
Kathy Mitchell - Kathy Beale (??)
Little Mo Mitchell - Little Mo Slater
Some of the others, I feel can perhaps be left alone as there may not be as much consensus regarding their names, like: Lisa Fowler; Mel Owen; Irene Raymond, etc. Pat Evans should remain as Pat Evans?? I've always thought of her as Pat Butcher (but I still think of Dot as Dot Cotton not Branning) but I understand she has been an Evans' longer.
I was thinking the same thing about the Kat and Alfie articles.... I'll help with the Kat article. Familiae Watt§ ( talk) 04:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Comments and criticisms appreciated - see further on talk page: [10]. ✽ Familiae Watt§ (TALK) 07:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Pauline Fowler is our only FA and this year would be the perfect opportunity to get it listed on the front page. 19 February is the perfect date as it is the 25th anniversary of the show and the 25th anniversary of the character's first appearance, which gives it more points. An alternative date is 26 February, the anniversary of Wendy Richard's death. However, FA nomination looks VERY complicated as they only allow 5 to be nominated at a time though you can replace the one with the lowest points if you think yours has higher points. I think we get 2 points for it being promoted more than 2 years ago, 2 points for being a 25th anniversary, probably 1 point for "contributor history" and maybe more. At least 5 points gives it a good chance, but I'm scared to nominate it because it means removing another nomination. I'm so confused! But now is the time for nomination! AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 20:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Update: I have nominated Pauline Fowler for TFA: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#February 26. AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 19:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Why do the infobox headings have "EastEnders character" above the image and the character name below? Wouldn't it be better the other way around? Bradley0110 ( talk) 13:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this worth an article, do we think, or will there be too much overlap with the eventual "Who Killed Archie?" article for it to be worth it? I think I'm finally getting the hang of putting together GA-class episode articles, but if there's going to be excessive duplication, then there's no point. Good opportunity for a DYK, though ;) Frickative 18:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh no! I just realised I already did this >>> History of EastEnders#25th anniversary!!! I completely forgot about it. An article about the 25th anniversary would be spun-off from that and not eligible for DYK :( - unless... it wasn't copied from there? Wah! It's too hard anyway! AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 01:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I definitely think that now we know the live episode got the highest viewings for about 7 years we either need a live episode or a Who Killed Archie article. Alex250P ( talk) 16:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI both articles have gone live - EastEnders Live and Who Killed Archie?. AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 19:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that you guys are all doing such a fantastic job with the project. Sorry am not around as much as I used to be, but it's lovely to see the project is in such good hands and that all the hard work put in over the years is being expanded on. I just saw Wellard...amazing transformation. GunGagdin Moan 00:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh that sounds fantastic, and can I just say aswell that by looking at all the EastEnders articles and ones from other soaps its clear that EastEnders are the best prepared and they are always up to date, so I would have to agree in saying that ye are all doing fantastic jobs and the articles and i can't wait to see Paulinr Fowler's article on the front page it will looking amazing and ye deserve it:D:D Brianwazere 12:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I second that, some of the effort you guys show is incredible, and I try to help wherever I can lol Alex250P ( talk) 14:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.
Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.