Talk:David Wicks

Back for Good??

Does anyone know if he's Back for Good...? or is it just a quick "hello and goodbye"? —78.151.42.36 (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I havent read many spoliers for a long time, so I dont know and therfore cannot answer your question :D MayhemMario 17:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's been any indication that Michael French intends to leave Casualty, so it's likely just a guest return. Frickative 17:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Needs reception and impact

Someone has erased the tag because this article is thought to be good as "it is". However, I must disagree with that reasoning. This article consists of fictional elements, and Wikipedia treats fiction in a manner of encyclopedia standards. Even "Development" alone cannot help balance between real-world and fiction. This article needs context of reception on and impact from this character, and non-primary sources should help. Is he a "bad boy", a "bad father", a "good guy", "likeable", "unlikeable", or something else, according to sources? --George Ho (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Image

What was up with the old image? He doesn't look that different tbh, he's one of those men that time is kind too. The image is meant to identify the reader with the subject, I think that is best done with an old image from his first run - the run he is notable for. At point, right now - I don't think there should be two non-free images at play.Rain the 1 03:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What about File:Michael French Nick Jordan BBC.jpg? Does he look the same... or older... and handsome, too? --George Ho (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh no that's Nick Jordon.. it wouldn't be right. Do you think he is handsome?Rain the 1 03:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic, but yes!!! Well, I know he's Nick Jordan. However, does Michael French look different from 1996? --George Ho (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We can go off topic now and again. :p You can tell he has aged a little. .. still think a 90's image is better in this case. :)Rain the 1 04:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

How is the case of David Wicks different from of Pauline Fowler? Easily, she has haircut; Wicks did, as well. Maybe an image from 1993 can help more than from 1996; trying still to find one. --George Ho (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Staying or leaving? No sources yet?

Per User talk:George Ho#David Wicks, his staying or leaving is not that controversial; however, I have seen edits that may claim his staying or leaving. Well... I removed the dash because we haven't reached the end of 2012 yet and because... the only source is the primary source and because the speculation that this character is either staying or leaving is OR. --George Ho (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

We dont always get sources which clearly state if a character in EastEnders is staying or departing. In the case of David, we didn't even have official confirmation from the BBC that he was returning! In these cases we can only assume if a character is currently appearing that they will continue to do so until we have a source saying otherwise. If we assume this we always put 2012- or 2011-. Bleaney (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is still January, and Winter 2013 hasn't come up yet. Why having a dash there? Isn't there a policy or guideline against these assumptions? --George Ho (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

He's definitely leaving on 13 January 2012. This DigitalSpy article for the upcoming soap episode on 16 January 2012 says that Bianca is confused about David being gone, and he's no longer mentioned or credited in the foreseeable episodes after Pat's funeral. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/spoilers/a357762/ricky-desperately-tries-to-save-his-marriage.html JackJackUK (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No, what you mean is his last credited appearance is 13 January 2012. In theory he could appear again in forthcoming spoilers at anytime. Yes I think we all know deep down he's not returning, but weve had no official sayso from the BBC. In answer to George, it's not an assumption to add a dash. It simply means that the character is continuing to currently appear. Bleaney (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, why not "January 2012—"? --George Ho (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Another article may confirm the upcoming storyline; nevertheless, Carol may stay for a while, while David is unconfirmed: http://www.digitalspy.com/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a359203/potd-eastenders-david-plan-backfires.html. --George Ho (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Bleaney that's exactly the same as saying he's no longer mentioned or credited after 13 January 2012 ;/. DigitalSpy upcoming soap episodes summaries don't even mention David Wicks. JackJackUK (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Lol, hang on boys dont shoot me! We have to try and avoid original research as much as possible, and im only following conventions on here that have been follwed for ages. Generally we dont report a characters arrival OR departure unless we have an official source from the BBC. This is annoying as sometimes the beeb dont tell us. However we can only go on official sources. David is credited in upcoming episodes by the BBC, THEREFORE he is a current character. Unless we have confirmation from the BBC etc that he has departed we have to go by this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleaney (talk • contribs) 20:19, 10 January 2012‎ (UTC)

I have noticeboards: WP:ORN, WP:RSN, and WP:COIN. If both (I mean both, not either) of you want to take this issue to either noticeboard, then let's do so. --George Ho (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to clear things up (official source coming your way), Sharon Marshall on ITV's This Morning said (not exact quote, something like this), "Wicksy will be with us for a couple of weeks"- On 3 January 2012. MayhemMario 20:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I dont but can I suggest if it is to be discussed that we talk it out on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders as this may have a bearing on other EastEnders pages. Bleaney (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done that. --George Ho (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Just in case it's needed, here's a ref for David's departure - [1]. - JuneGloom Talk 20:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Jane Reynolds Reception — M.Mario (T/C) 18:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Brian Wicks

Brian Wicks did not adopt David. He is his stepdad and technically should not be included on his infobox because he never shared any episodes with him (as per consensus). David and Simon Beale took the 'Wicks' name because their mother had remarried. You cannot actually adopt a child unless their parents die or you are the parent on the birth certificate or if the child is given up for adoption. Pete still had some contact with his sons, he remained their father but they took Brian's name. In fact David and Simon hardly knew Brian, if you watched Lou's funeral, Simon did not really know Brian and hardly seen him and hated him when they met (he called him a 'four letter word'). It is about time people stuck with facts rather than disregard experience and expertise.--86.151.240.132 (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Brian has been removed. Bleaney (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought this was a very civil way of putting your point across, until I got to "It is about time people stuck with facts rather than disregard experience and expertise." There's no need for that, especially when the information was probably added by editors who are no longer editing Wikipedia. But at least you're now accepting the consensus. –anemoneprojectors– 10:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Duration

It does seem odd that David Wicks has a duration of 2012- instead of 2012, 2013- given his last appearance was January 2012. Amira Masood's duration casued a furore and that was less than what his absence is. She left in April 2010 and returned in October 2011, whereas Wicks departed in January 2012 and will return in September 2013. That's a year and 8 months. Seems far too long and misleading.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it is this... How will it all look in 5 years time? The body of the article explains the exact dates of David's various arrivals and departures, but these infoboxes dont need to be that detailed. What we dont want is situations where a characters duarations could read 2004-5, 2006-8, 2009, 2010-11, 2012, 2013- because it gets daft. If David was in the show in the last calendar year then it all relates to him being almost a 'recurring' character in the show, and it could even be argued that he never really left at all! Lets avoid clogging up these infoboxes with overly detailed info that is already available in the article. Bleaney (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I hardly think it looks 'clogged up'... at the end of the day what is better, the article looking 'pretty' or an article that is factually correct? David has not appeared continuously since 2012. He had a two week stint in January 2012, and then returned twenty-one months later. I think it should be split on this occasion. Alex250P (talk)

I am in full agreement with ArsenalFan and Alex but no doubt the bullybois will get their own way once again. What is the point in having 'rules'/guidelines if they are just going to be broken? A gap between Jan 2012 and Sept 2013 is way too long for it not to be noteworthy in the info box. I don't see why having lots of durations really matters if it's factually correct. Some of the Corrie articles have several durations for their characters (dispelling the myth that they are oh so wonderful at holding on their cast, I was surprised by how many times some of their older characters have come and gone, they compare to EE in that regard), plus this is Michael French we're talking about here. It's a miracle they have got him back at all and for this long. I don't see him coming and going for the rest of his life. Pat was David's main connection. Once Carol and Bianca have gone in the future, if he leaves too then he will have little reason to return. I think this is his last stint in the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.97.199 (talk • contribs) 18:27, March 27, 2014

Yes, the argument for splitting 2012 & 2013 is sound.I agree with Arsenalfan24, Alex250P and IP:92.0.97.199 on this and think we do not have to concern ourselves about five years on. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 23:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou Gareth Griffith-Jones, I just feel like there is so many rules and regulations with these articles these days that users are losing sight of the point of Wikipedia - an encyclopedia of facts. Alex250P (talk)

Quite so, Alex. Some editors forget, or choose to forget, that WP:MOS is a guide; no more in my opinion. It must allow for a degree of flexibility — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Responding to Alex's revert today. I have not had a change of heart over this, but I reverted because a consensus has not yet been reached. I agree with you and those who don't should discuss it here. The invitation is out there. We should give them a reasonable chance to do so. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe that 2012- is fine. There is no need to clutter the infobox with dates. Keep consistency across the project. All gaps in duration are explained in the article itself. An infobox is for a concise run down and nothing more. The fact of the matter is he appeared in 2013 and 2013 and 2014 - he has appeared every year since. 2012- basically states that. When dealing with recurring characters - say they appear in one to five episodes each year for 14 years. Would the duration be "2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009.." You get the idea. I actually find this disruptive behaviour. There was a consensus - not sure why there needs to be such a fuss. Much like with Amira - and others. I would like to point out User:Alex250P - these rules were made for a reason. To keep it simple, they had much thought and discussion they were agreed upon. I find it rather odd that you accuse others of not being interested in adding facts. Some of us have actually built these articles from the ground up - full of facts.Rain the 1 20:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The amount of time you have been editing these articles Rain does not give you the right to dictate edits/have the final say on matters. You are no important than anyone else unless you are an administrator and even then it's a voluntary unpaid position and a consensus still has to be reached on edits. Anyway I have been following the EastEnders Wikipedia project since the mid 2000s and don't recall your name on any edits the likes of AP, Trampikey and Gungadin are the ones who put all the hard work in originally, so your comment about building these articles from the ground up is rather silly. You may do a lot of work on them now but you are not one of the foundation stones.

Re: recurring characters they are usually listed in terms of duration that they were appearing as a recurring character. So for Aunt Sal she is listed between 2007-2011 then nothing until 2013- because she appeared sporadically between 2007 and 2011. That's the easiest way of doing it. Regular characters are different and therefore treated differently. Regular characters don't tend to come and go as much as recurring. That said it's odd how Aunt Sal is now listed as former recurring, what happened to the one year rule? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.96.19 (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

AP can you please stop editing David's duration. The rule for durations isn't whether the 'character appeared in every year' it's supposed to be whether there were at least 12 months between appearances. If there were then that breaks up the duration. It's ridiculous to suggest that David appeared in EastEnders from 2012 until 2014 when he didn't appear from January 2012 until September 2013. For one thing he returned as a GUEST character in 2012 for Pat's departure storyline. He returned on a regular, albeit short-term, contract in 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.105.54 (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't mix up a calendar year with a 12 month period. The rule is indeed whether a character appeared in every year, regardless of the length of the gap. If someone left in January 2013 and returned in December 2014, the gap is of less than one calendar year, because there is not a calendar year between 2013 and 2014. It is not suggesting that the character appeared consistently from 2012 to 2014, but that he appeared in every year from 2012 to 2014. I should note that a BBC documentary that went out a few years ago completely omitted any gaps in duration, so for Peggy Mitchell, they would have said "1991–2013". That's not the point here but it's worth mentioning. The infobox is only meant as a summary. The actual durations are mentioned in the very first article. –anemoneprojectors– 21:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between a documentary and an encyclopedia though and the BBC are always getting things wrong. Plus it would look messy on the TV to have five different durations. On a web article it's a different story. I know what a calendar year is however in the past I have seen discussions on these talk pages where it was agreed that a gap of 12 months would be enough to split the duration. I just wish the rules were consistent. Under this 'calendar year' rule duration is misleading. The infobox is the quickest source for information and this rule could easily mislead people into thinking characters were present when they were not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.105.54 (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I also think the fact David and Peggy were guest characters in 2012/2004 is significant. Both of these characters have been regulars and guest characters. Had they appeared in a regular capacity in their 'stop gap' years, i.e. the same capacity they had appeared in before and after, then you might have a point about the 'calendar year' rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.105.54 (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to add: that documentary the BBC aired in 2010 was focused purely on Barbara Windsor leaving EastEnders/Peggy being 'Queen of the Vic'. Windsor didn't even portray Peggy in 1991, so that shows how much the BBC know and how much we should take notice of them when it comes to EastEnders. Like I say there's an important difference between something flashing up in a documentary and an encyclopedia that claims to give facts. If you're going to take that documentary as the bench mark for what you should be doing then you might as well change Peggy's duration to 1991-2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.105.54 (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about that documentary, I think it was the one about who had the most cliffhangers. I said it's "not the point here" here though but just worth mentioning, so please stop focussing on that comment. –anemoneprojectors– 21:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't take a tone with me. There's no need for it; skeletons and closets and all that. I was polite to you. I was led to believe it was a 12 month rule not a calendar year rule after seeing a discussion on another talk page. I still think it's a stupid rule but I will concede I might have been misled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.105.54 (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across that way. And I'm sorry you feel you were misled. One of the old discussions is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders/Archive 16#Duration discussion rebooted, from late 2012, and that also refers to the original of 2011. I always said individuals could be discussed, so this is good, but it's for people like David Wicks that we have the rule in the first place. –anemoneprojectors– 22:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Np. One thing though if it is based on calendar year then shouldn't Aunt Sal still be classed as recurring? I think the '12 month' thing I read may even have pertained to her/recurring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.105.54 (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. The "one year rule" is about recurring characters. With characters like Sal, who could pop up at any time, we tend to wait a year before marking them off as past characters, unless it's really obvious they won't be back. –anemoneprojectors– 07:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Genealogy

David is the son of Pat Wicks (Pam St. Clement) and her first husband Pete Beale (Peter Dean (actor))

Gareth--I get a bit winded with the para. How about the following. Take a looksee and from my "unknown" perspective this might be clearer; basically the same words but with my index card sentence composition application:

David is the son of Pat Wicks (Pam St. Clement) and her first husband Pete Beale (Peter Dean); the marriage ended when David and his brother Simon (Nick Berry) were young. Pat remarried to Brian Wicks (Leslie Schofield), who adopted both David and Simon, the latter it was found to be Brian's natural son. Meanwhile Pete's second marriage was to Kathy Hills (Gillian Taylforth) and they had a son, Ian (Adam Woodyatt). David and Simon moved away from Walford in 1976 and Pete no longer had no further contact.

"marriage" lets another "reference to someone(s) rather than repeat their name(s) so closely. "second marriage" Was Pete previously married to Kathy? therefore he was "remarrying" for his second time but her first so in total they were not remarrying. "they" you might as well bring Kathy into the situation since she spent 9 months carrying the thing. D & S move away so it is they that are no longer in contact verses Pete who remains.76.170.88.72 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC) The problem with these soaps/series is that there is so much detail when you attempt to get it down that attempting to get it down and arranged so that others do not think that you were schooled by the deaf blind and clueless, just can get too overbearing. And OMG for those that have a fit over what "they" perceive as a mistake so just toooooooo "get a life" response. The world is not going to fall apart because something in WP could be better written; the world seems to be falling apart on it's own volition.76.170.88.72 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Hope you don't object, but I put Genealogy as a substitute for your sub-heading; whilst retaining yours below it.
I agree with your observations here and this does need a rewrite. Your offering requires a few tweaks.
It is even more complicated than you may imagine!

1986 heralded the beginning of a storyline that Colin Brake has described as one of the soap's most complicated, convoluted, confusing and mind-boggling: The paternity of Simon Wicks. As part of the original storyline, Wicksy's mother Pat (Pam St Clement) was introduced as a major antagonist for the Beale family, when she announced that her former husband Pete was not Simon's biological father, as had previously been claimed. So began a long-running storyline played out throughout the year and continuing into 1988, which included other characters being implemented as the potential father of Simon, including Pete's older brother Kenny Beale (Michael Attwell). In the on-screen events, Simon was shown to bond with Kenny, despite Pat admitting that she did not know which of the Beale brothers had fathered Wicksy. A final plot twist mid-1988 saw Pat finally reveal what she thought was the truth, that Simon's real father was Brian Wicks (Leslie Schofield), Pat's second husband and Wicksy's adoptive father. Despite this revelation on-screen, Colin Brake stated in an official EastEnders' book in 1995 that the true parentage of Simon was still uncertain in the minds of the producers. He stated, "At various times over the years the story has been amended, until the only certainty is that we will never be certain about the actual facts." He added that, at the time of writing the book for EastEnders' 10th anniversary in 1994, "the current producers believe that Pete was the father of [Simon's older brother] David and may have been the father of Simon."

I shall return.
Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem with retitling. Understand about the tweaking. These types of articles include so much info in such a concentrated space, and can get lengthy, that sometimes in order to get something down you can go robot on automatic. But then by the time you get to the end you can get a bit foggy with mental fatigue. That is why sometimes I like to take a break from the article after thinking that it is complete to find that what in one situation may be clear is in another not so clear, i.e. "remarriage". Remarriage is remarriage but in situations such as storylines of soaps/series, especially the complex situations such as this one, people are marrying/partnering/having children and divorcing/etc so often that a lot of subconsciously remembered info does not quite make it on the page in a clear manner. You are more familiar with the program and appropriate expressions so ....... One always has to decide just when a section should end and how to start off so that you do not "flip flop" about attempting to get it all in.76.170.88.72 (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)