File talk:Sharon Phil Grant Sharongate EastEnders.jpg

This file is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles

EastEnders

This file is within the scope of WikiProject EastEnders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the popular BBC soap opera EastEnders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EastEndersWikipedia:WikiProject EastEndersTemplate:WikiProject EastEndersEastEnders articles

Tasks for WikiProject EastEnders:

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.

Updated image

As the image is still non-free, I feel that the previous one is more representitive of the storyline. Just my opinion. –anemone projectors– 15:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both do represent the main topic in general, Sharongate. Per WP:NFCC, both are non-free. As for #2, previous image is a screenshot, while the other is a promo; it's your call about commercial oppertunities. Nevertheless, they equally meet #2, I think, but what if I'm wrong? #3-4,6-10 may be met. What about #5? I really thought, regardless of fandom, the promo image meets the general content standards of Wikipedia a lot more. The screenshot... hmm... what do you think? --George Ho (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'll see if anyone else is bothered. Gungadin uploaded it, but I'm not sure she's so active at the moment on here. –anemone projectors– 13:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, and possibly preferrable, seeing as the one it replaced was three screenshots merged into one. George Ho, instead of opening all the image deletion pages, why dont you just be brave and remove the images you feel are superfluous. If they are contested, then a discussion can be had, and if need be the images can go up for deletion. Many images in these articles are remnants of WP:EE's image uploading habits from years ago. We have become much tighter with fairuse to align with policy, so the images you propose for deletion would likely not be contested were you just to remove them. In fact, I am going to do that with two images on this page now.GunGagdin ^Moan 16:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reg Cox images are already removed, orphaned, and ready for deletion, although I didn't do them. Well, I guess they aren't that necessary and educational. Anyway, thanks for appreciating my promo image of Sharongate. --George Ho (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]