Talk:Dot Cotton

Dot Cotton has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 25, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 11, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

EastEnders

This article 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.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters 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.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Soap Operas

This article 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

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Bingo Link

The link for bingo goes to a disambig page. Being as this is a British based series, I assume that it means Housie. If not, the link should go to Bingo (US). Please do not just change it back to Bingo, that is an incorrect link. Warhorus 17:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for changing it. I assumed bingo was the correct page, as I have never heard of housie. It's only ever called bingo here. I was going to change it back when I realised but you already did. Sweetie Petie 18:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I just wanted to make sure you knew what the story behind the edit was. I forgot myself that since it was call Bingo over where you are that it might seem out of place having it linked to Housie. Personally, I would rather see Housie redirect to Bingo (UK) rather than the other way around, since thats what you guys call it. Either way, thanks a lot for taking the change in stride! Warhorus 18:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article

I though the article seemed a bit incomplete so i decided to add to the content and detail. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparhelda (talk • contribs)

Storylines

The storylines need to be padded out, especially from the early days - pre-1993. There is way too much about Pauline's death and Tomas, it needs to be trimmed down. I'm also not keen on the AlexWilkes-style mulitple headings... anyone agree? I'm reading the Baffled Heart book at the moment, so I'll add more info to the early life section as and when... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking this. Someone's done a great job expanding it recently, but it has become far too detailed in parts. Pauline's death and the Tomas section needs to be cut down a lot to allow for an OOU section and expansion of her early storylines. It's becoming very 'bottom heavy' - several months of the character's history make up the majority of the article. Dot was involved in the Pauline storyline but she wasn't central to the entire plot, so it should be less detailed. I was intending to do something with this article after I did Grant, but I lost my motivation slightly after the last critique we were given so it's taken me longer than I intended :) Gungadin 17:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments exactly. I could probably write an OOU section for the Slater sisters - and I could definitely write about Jamie's exit... also there's some information I could write up about May's casting etc... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to write about Dot's dead baby as well. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this may have been my fault, i've been working on the article alot but i guess i got a bit carried away. -Sparhelda 16 May 2007

Though the key plot elements should definitely be covered, I recommend keeping the plot summary at no longer than 500-1000 words. I'd also like to see more mainstream sources verifying that the elements were "notable" to the world, outside of just the fans of the show. --El on ka 21:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats the Tomas storyline done now. Maybe we could keep it about the same then? I mean, this article could do with some more detail i think. --Sparhelda 19:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, a lot of the Tomas stuff (and don't take offence at this) but mostly your contributions need to be cut down a hell of a lot. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. I suppose so but i've seen sections as long as that in alot of other articles. But maybe thats cause they were more major storylines though. I always got the impression this would be a big storyline that may go on for a while but its ended up pretty short and uncompliacated. --Sparhelda 20:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, 2 months of storylines does not constitute that amount of writing... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although i do feel the article is very brief and hazy in sections compared to what alot of the old characters have, Pauline(although that has been majorly cut) Kathy, etc. Dot's an important character and has been in it from basicly the beginning except the 4 year 90s absence. But it requires someone with detailed more knowledge of the older times to extend the article. --Sparhelda 20:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to cut down the Pauline and Tomas sections now. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe not, I'll do it when I get a chance. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd cut it down myself but i have no idea what you think would be appropriate.--Sparhelda 18:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut down "Pauline's death" significantly. There was a lot of detail about other characters, which I removed or condensed. We need to keep the article as focused on Dot as possible. If someone wants to read details about other characters, they can go to their pages.Gungadin 20:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i over did that section. Sorry. --Sparhelda 19:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise. I realise you were only trying to help by extending the article and what you wrote was good, but it was just too detailed. We only have a finite amount of space and as Dot is still in the show she will be having more storylines and we would soon run out of space if we covered all her storylines in such great detail.

Trampikey and I have discussed giving this page a bit of a make over, which you're welcome to help out with if you want to. If you have any ideas on what you would like to see included/excluded, or how you would like to see the page set out then just mention them here. I'm going to work on an out of universe section so that the page wont get tagged again. Gungadin 21:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i'd like to help. I'd like to see a bit more detail in some areas, i suppose maybe Dot's storylines haven't been as long and drawn out as some but when you look at some of the other older characters the storyline sections are quite long and detailed without being too OTT. Even ones like Phil and Peggy are quite long and they didn't join the show until 1991 and 1994, in fact i'd say Phil's is probably a bit over done. The first part thats really talked about on the article in chronological order is Dot's departure, her storylines 8 years before should be included in another section or two. A part about her baby dying as Trampikey has mentioned would be good and maybe some character creation and developement. We'll see anyway, no rush.--Sparhelda 14:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vlcsnap-552182.png

Image:Vlcsnap-552182.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dot&ethel.jpg

Image:Dot&ethel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dot&jim0.jpg

Image:Dot&jim0.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dot Cotton (television character).jpg

Image:Dot Cotton (television character).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June Brown was in tears

When this article get OOU perspective, something like this can be used as a source: SPOILER ALERT EastEnders' Dot Branning weeps her heart out ^anemone│_projectors 00:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June Brown: All alone in Dot's kitchen ^anemone│_projectors 13:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnder legend June Brown's rise from the stage to the Square ^anemone│_projectors 22:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enders: Dot's going it alone
Dot terror at cancer
Dr Den lifts Dot
Beware the Dot factor
Watch this
Star loses plot over Big-C Dot Gung adin 23:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sign on the Dotted line —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gungadin (talk • contribs) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another; June Brown: Performance art at the heart of Albert Square. I can't believe this article doesn't have any OOU sections yet! ^anemone│_projectors 13:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plan for Development ideas for Dot Cotton

I'm including my ideas, as I think this article could be a good collaboration for the EE project, and a potential FA candidate perhaps, in the very distant future :) Please add anything you think may be important.

~~Sections to include:~~

Personailty

Gossip

Religion

Costume

~~Comical role~~

~~*Relationship with Nick~~ ~~*Frienships~~

Lou

Ethel

~~Pauline~~
Marriages

*Jim *Charlie

Eutanasia
Single hander
Immigrant baby?
Cancer

~~*1993 exit and 1997 return~~ GunGagdin^Moan 15:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Dad?

"helped her mother kill her husband as he abused her" - Was this bit mentioned on-screen ever? I dont recall hearing about this before.GunGagdin ^Moan 12:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that bit seemed odd when I condensed the section down, though I can't remember exactly how it was worded before, so I might have misinterpreted it? I've not seen the Dot's Story episode, but I assume it would have come from there if it was ever mentioned. Frickative 12:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, possibly, I did see that episode but dont recall her saying that. Perhaps Trampikey added it from the Hugh Miller novels, but I have never been sure that those books should really be treated as canon, what do you think? GunGagdin^Moan 12:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'd totally forgotten the books even existed... I'd say information from the novels should either be summarised in a separate Literature section/subsection, or if there's not enough material to warrant it, at least clearly denoted in the text that it's not from the show itself. Frickative 13:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. As we now cant know where this info came from and as it cant be verified, i think i'll remove it for now; it can always be put back in if someone comes up with a source.GunGagdin ^Moan 13:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar Girls

I see there's no mention of her leaving for Calendar Girls other than in the lead. I wanted to add a quote from Diederick Santer: "there were quite a few Dot stories lined up but June wanted time off to do Calendar Girls. Those stories will play out in the New Year." The reference is the same as the one I added with the name "santer2009". AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Assessment

I have finished assessing this article and have found that it does not yet meet Good Article criteria. A full summary of my assessment can be found here. You may renominate this article after the issues noted in my assessment have been corrected. bwmcmaste (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you have just put it on hold? We've waited about three months for this review and now we'll have to wait another three. anemoneprojectors talk 00:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the issues raised seem the sort that could be easily dealt with within a day or two, and definitely within the standard one week holding period. Very disheartening to wait so long for a review, then fail over easily fixable issues. Frickative 00:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. especially seeing as the references asked for are all plot points that cane be referenced to Eastenders!!01:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The GA review is what needed to be failed. RAIN the ONE (Talk) 03:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was very disapointingly handled.... whilst a 7-day grace period is not law, given how long articles now have to wait to be reviewed it probably should be. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 00:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is, however, a GA backlog drive commencing next month (April), so if we do the changes and resubmit it with luck it shouldn't take another 3 months to face review. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 05:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the drive will be a positive thing, and not just encourage more reviewers to rush through failing reviews with no grace period, because as far as I can see all the referencing 'issues' (2/3rds of which weren't 'wrong' at all, just the reviewer misunderstanding in-line citation placement and even the MOS:TV guidelines on plot summaries!) were fixed within hours of the review concluding. Sorry to be negative, this one's just left a particularly bad taste. Frickative 12:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we not complain? anemoneprojectors talk 12:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAR just recommends re-listing. I wish there was a process for putting an article back in its previous position in the queue, but I don't think that's allowed. Frickative 12:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a passing comment from a GA reviewer, you can actually request that the article is reassessed if you believe that the original GA reviewer made a mistake by clicking on the reassessment link above. If not, then you would need to renominate the article for GA status, from what I've seen of the article it should pass this time --5 albert square (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I think it will be easier to just relist. Probably the plot section needs to be referenced somehow first anyway. GA seems to be very tight these days, i'd hate to see how strict FACs are now. I dread to think...GunGagdin ^Moan 16:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TV says plot summaries don't need to be referenced unless it's something that might be disputed (such as did Bradley jump or fall?) - look at our other recent GAs, no plot references. anemoneprojectors talk 19:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems to depend on the reviewer, and whether they are either familiar with all conventions or not (or chose not to abide by them). ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 20:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They should be familiar with all aspects of the MOS, otherwise what's the point? Yes it's just a guideline but if a MOS says we don't necessarily have to do something, then why should a GA reviewer force us to do it? anemoneprojectors talk 21:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think this article's better than Pauline and should be a FA Godammit!!! GunGagdin^Moan 02:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypochondria

Dot's hypochondria is touched upon in the article, I'm not sure if this source adds anything to it... Anemone Projectors 10:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sources for pop culture

The Dot impersonation originating in the 2000 Impressions special
McGowan on the special: "People's jaws just dropped when I walked out of make-up wearing Dot's wig. This show's about the important people and events that have featured throughout the year."
On how it was Ronni Ancona's suggestion that he do Dot
"My favourite is Dot Cotton because I look a bit like her."
Dot and Nick played as Steptoe and Son
Dot included in his An Evening With... stand-up show
as well as his Variety Club Awards act - review: "Alastair McGowan went through his increasingly tiring EastEnders repertoire. Hasn't he Dot Cottoned on that we are getting bored of it?"

More reviews:

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dot Branning/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 5 albert square (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have a few suggestions to make for improving the article before it passes/fails GA.

It mentions in the article "To Dot's dismay, Dotty is retrieved by her mother following various devious deeds." What "various devious deeds" are these? What did Dotty do? Some expansion (though not much) would be good on this. DoneGunGagdin^Moan 15:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 29 needs replacing, when I click on the link it says that the user has deleted their account so the information is no longer there. DoneGunGagdin ^Moan 15:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 95 needs replacing, it no longer seems to talk about smoking.

Done Frickative 00:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 73 - can we get a reliable source to confirm this? At the minute reference 71 is IMDB, as WP:RS states, IMDB is classed as a self-published source and is largely not acceptable.{{done}] removed cos we cant find refs GunGagdin^Moan 20:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 67 needs replacing as it now directs to a BBC Mobile page. DoneGunGagdin ^Moan 15:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References 58, 57 Done removed the urlsGunGagdin ^Moan 01:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

55 all need replacing as all are now dead links.

Reference 54 needs replacing, it says that the book can no longer be located there. Done removed the link, as it's a book and so doesnt really need the google books link as it's fine to have it as just an offline refGunGagdin ^Moan 15:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check back to this in a day or two's time and review it again to give people the chance to work on it.--5 albert square (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work so far. I'll have a look over the next few days and see if I can get anything to replace the other dead references.--5 albert square (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do dead links always mean we have to replace the content? Just curious, because with quotes, if the pages get deleted and we have to change the sources, we will lose the quotes wont we? Thinking of Jaci Stephen's stuff in immigration here. The page is deleted and I cant find an updated link in the web to the page.GunGagdin ^Moan 15:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LINKROT says not to remove content just because a link has gone dead, but I don't know whether leaving deadlinks in long-term contradicts WP:V. Google has Jaci Stephen's article cached, but Web Cite won't archive it, which isn't helpful. Actually, as it was originally a print source, as long as we've got all the details filled out we could probably just drop the URL and cite the print newspaper. Frickative 15:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the urls, I dont know what to dabout the macmillan one though. I checked the wayback machine but its not archived. Any ideas?GunGagdin^Moan 01:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also struggling to find refs for some of the award nominations refd by IMDB - now ref 73.GunGagdin ^Moan 01:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried several times to replace the IMDb references for awards in the EE awards list to no avail unfortuately. There should be something but... there just isn't. –anemone projectors– 10:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when 5 Albert Square sees the discussion, she'll have some ideas. I suppose we can remove the ones that cant be referenced and say she has been nominated for awards, and not be specific.GunGagdin ^Moan 12:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's only three nominations that have IMDb has references... it's a shame the NTA website only lists past winners and not past nominees. I just tried again to find sources for the specific awards but there's just nothing. Some of them were on the old EE website but they're gone now. It's a shame because it's messed up the list of EE awards as well! –anemone projectors– 19:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wayback machine caches the EE website, have you got the old links for these refs? PS, what's you thoughts re the images because, dunno if u noticed, but the page has been tagged and they all have been put up for deletion. I deleted some, kept others; nominating user isnt bothering to engage with my changes to the rationales. Any feedback?GunGagdin^Moan 19:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have one - http://www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders/news/news_20080707.shtml - but it's coming up "Data Retrieval Failure". I saw the tag, didn't know images had been put up for deletion... –anemone projectors– 19:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dot1985.jpg seems ok to me, so I removed the deletion notice. Dot&jim0.jpg is a more tricky one though I note that the coat she is wearing is one talked about in the article. –anemone projectors– 19:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Well, the images were tagged for deletion, not given an AFD or whatever the image one is called. and they will be deleted after a week... same user who nommed Kat's early image, and no doubt the images will be put up for deletion if we remove templates, because there's no such thing as compromise for some people and it's their way or no way. I think if this carries on here, I am going off to Walford Web with Trampikey, and writing my articles there instead. It's getting so political here at the moment.U should come too :) GunGagdin^Moan 19:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely will not do that! But this is about Dot's GA :-) Just one image to sort out and I think mentioning the brown coat is a really good idea. –anemone projectors– 19:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what do u think about the rationale now? I removed template.GunGagdin ^Moan 19:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Now we need to sort out those awards. –anemone projectors– 19:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the references for awards, is there nothing apart from IMDB that can be found for backing these up? If no other refs can be found I can only think that we maybe change the section to read that she's been nominated/won x, y and z awards amongst others. That should be ok.--5 albert square (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK I removed and will put the sentence on talk page so if a ref comes up it can be put back in. Only outstanding issue now is ref 55, the macmillan cancer ref that is now a dead link. What to do about this? Seems wrong to lose the info.GunGagdin ^Moan 20:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and find some references for it.--5 albert square (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have managed to find a link on Channel 5's website that at least backs up that Dot was diagnosed with Kidney cancer in 2004. However I can't find anything backing up what that nurse is quoted as saying. Every source I'm finding is getting it's info from Wikipedia! I've tried a Google search, reference search and I can't find it. Seems a shame to lose it though. Anyone else got any ideas?--5 albert square (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is a dead link a definite fail for GA then? It seems so silly that they are making it that way. just because the info is no longer on a published site online, that it somehow doesnt count for inclusion, because when it was included it was published. Can we just source to the publisher without linking the URL? GunGagdin^Moan 00:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked the quick fail criteria and it should be ok to source the publisher without linking to the URL.--5 albert square (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great

Done everything should be sorted now.GunGagdin ^Moan 03:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you passed it as you updated the talk page! –anemone projectors– 22:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 NTAs

This could (should) be added to popular culture but all I can find is Unreality Shout which isn't a really reliable source [1] –Anemone Projectors– 14:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cant the televised show just be referenced?GunGagdin^Moan 21:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather use Unreality Shout. It has a video of it. –Anemone Projectors– 21:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed content (cos we cant find any refs for theses other than IMDB)

"The role also resulted in a 'Best Comedy Performance' nomination at the 1999 British Soap Awards,[73] 'Most Popular Actress' nominations in the 2001[73] and 2005[74] National Television Awards, an 'Outstanding Serial Drama Performance' nomination at the 2008 NTAs,[73]"

If anyone can help with refs for these award nominations, would be much appreciated. Until then am leaving here so it can be replaced into reception section.GunGagdin ^Moan 20:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that ref [74] in this case is ok and hasn't been removed :-) –Anemone Projectors– 21:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont

A person called Gungadin just deleted a hours work on Dot Branning which took forever and had some really important stuff in it as i noticed that in the whole document there was NOTHING about Bradley in it at all it was like he hadnt existed. All the work i did was wiped yeah i can see some of it but not other parts which were very important and relevant to her storyline. Please think about wiping stuff beofre you actually do it.--MayhemMario (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MayhemMario

I can't speak for Gungadin, but for what it's worth I do agree with the edits. All Gungadin has done is condense the edits. The information is still there, just not mentioned in as much detail because there's no need for it.--5 albert square (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec due to dropped internet connection) Gungadin is the main contributor to this article and a long-standing member of the EastEnders Wikiproject. The storylines need to be as brief as possible, so her edits are justified. –Anemone Projectors– 21:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but now in the whole articl there is nothing about brdaley, im sorry i will delete this!--MayhemMario (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offence, but your idea of really imporant stuff included Bradley coming to stay, stuff about Jim spending time with Carol and Dot singing in the vic. Not exactly important in the grand scheme of things. When you make edits, it would be useful if you think to yourself 'will anyone give a shit about this in a year's time?'. Trivial plot info and filler stuff like you included are not significant plot elements for Dot's storyline. Can you imagine how long the storylines would be if we were to include every filler plot Dot's been involved with over the years? 'Dot shops in the minute mart....Dot drops her hanky....Dot urinates.'GunGagdin^Moan 21:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked over the addition and I'm sorry to say it's really not needed. Bradley and Dot's relationship has hardly been the talk of the media, so therefor it's not encyclopedic to add these things, nor is it to add Dot's every move around Walford. I know the editor in question would never remove anything if it needed to be there.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 23:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for deleting the dot branning thing i see where your'e coming from though i deletd them obviously for a point, a personal point.--MayhemMario (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. Restored talk however, it can be archived at a later date, useful incase this issue happens again.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 18:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where would this go?

Wheer would this link go? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayhemMario (talk • contribs) 20:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right here on the talk page. –Anemone Projectors– 00:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean?--MayhemMario (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He means that if you're looking for somewhere to "store" the link then it would be on the talk page :) --5 albert square (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I meant. But the information from the source doesn't have a home. Maybe it doesn't need to be mentioned at all. Not everything needs to be mentioned. –Anemone Projectors– 18:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Spy interview just out - also has no current home. As this article is Gungadin's baby, maybe she'll see if any of it is worth adding a new section for. There's also personality stuff, maybe the stuff about Edward could go in relationships?? –Anemone Projectors– 00:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol thanks AP, but any one should feel happy to edit as they see fit, dont want anyone to think I have ownership. But great interview. Some good stuff on characterisation as AP said. There's some development with Jim. I actually think Edward may go there, assuming he will be a plot device as some sort of problem in the Brannings marriage? The salary stuff could go in the casting section? Or we could have a separate section as we have done with Ian Beale entitled "longevity"?GunGagdin^Moan 13:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah of course anyone can edit it and add the information, I just thought that since you know the article better than anyone else, you'd know of the best places to put the info! :-) And yeah it looks like Edward's being used as a plot device. I haven't read the whole interview, but it also looks like Dot's going to have a fall. A longevity section could work too. –Anemone Projectors–

New sources

Lou (19 May 2011). "Preview: June Brown on Dot's struggle". EastEnders. BBC Online. Retrieved 19 May 2011. –Anemone Projectors– 18:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Butt, Riazat (14 June 2011). "BBC1 boss: EastEnders' Dot is an example of an ordinary Christian on TV". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. Retrieved 16 June 2011. –Anemone Projectors– 22:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Popular Culture

Hey dont no if this counts but what about the new game on the EE website, Suspicous Spoilers? I mean just look [[2]]. What do you think? Mayhem Mario 16:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just no. –Anemone Projectors– 09:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen

A IP added 'Gwen' as her aunt, was it mentioned in an episode?! I reverted it, but was I right?! Mayhem Mario 17:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen is the Aunt that Dot stayed with in Wales during the war. –Anemone Projectors– 14:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She wasnt a real aunt by blood.GunGagdin ^Moan 20:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok –Anemone Projectors– 14:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Branning to Cotton

As per this previous discussion, it was generally agreed that this article name should be changed to Dot Cotton. Can someone do this? Bleaney (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sorry, didn't see that discussion before! --5 albert square (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! Bleaney (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serial killer?

2 people and no psychological gratification. 82.32.200.253 (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, not a serial killer. I've removed the reference to the killing that was in the lead - made it sound like being a killer was an occupation!--5 albert square (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Dot Cotton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Dot Cotton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dot Cotton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928075543/http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=39&ArticleID=1924266 to http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=39&ArticleID=1924266

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dot Cotton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving

I think it's safe to say she's leaving, as the source given in the article when it says "she temporarly departed again on March 1, 2019" does mention this will be her last year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.240.209 (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Line of Duty character

Detective Inspector Matthew "Dot" Cottan is a character in Line of Duty. I'm wondering whether it is worth adding a hatnote from Dot Cotton to link to the Line of Duty article? Many people would know him as Dot Cottan but may not be aware of the different spelling. On the other hand, he doesn't seem notable enough to have an article of his own so it is questionable as to how many people would be searching for him specifically. --Jameboy (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]