Talk:List of former EastEnders characters

Adding characters

If you add any characters that I missed off when I initially made this page, could you please also add them to List of EastEnders Cast Members in the "Past" section. Thanks Trampikey 14:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Cast members, not characters

As this is a list of cast members, we should include actors who have played characters that have been re-cast, such as Danniella Westbrook and David Scarboro. --AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See my sandbox, I'm working on turning it around to be characters. Trampikey 16:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Major/minor characters

Would it be an idea to bold the characters who played a significant part in the series. There's a difference between Whoever Pappas and Grant Mitchell, for instance. HornetMike 16:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an old discussion, but I would like to revisit, because I think we should be doing something like this. We'd need to define what constitutes significant part though.GunGagdin^Moan 10:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a good idea, yes. But we may find there's a fine line between characters who played a significant part and those who didn't. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think if any doubt, they should be bold. Ones that appeared for over 6 months definitely, because that means they were offered a permanent contract, even if it wasnt renewed after 6.GunGagdin^Moan 13:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I shall let you make the decisions then :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard Beale

Does anyone know why this actor is being redirected to the main EastEnders page? he played the character Jackie stone in 1990 Gungadin 17:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably due to this edit -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

lol, i'm gonna make it into a proper actor page and remove the redirect.Gungadin 21:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter Pappas

Did he not appear on screen? Also what happened to the Polish woman who jumped on the laundry? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure if he appeared onscreen, I didnt pay much attention to the Pappas family, but he's redirecting to Helen Pappas for some reason. The polish woman seems to have quit, never to be seen from again no doubt.Gungadin 22:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed Trampikey redirect Peter Pappas saying his last name was not confirmed. The Polish woman doesn't appear on this list despite being a past character. She vanished from the "soon to join" list and never appeared here. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 12:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

???

I wanted to ask about this list. Is it still a rule that people can't be added to this list unless we know their character's surname? Because now that we dont have a cat for EE actors, I think we should include as many actors/characters on the list as possible to make it comprehensive. They dont all have to have an article of course, but there are several characters who only have one name, but appeared for quite a long time. Such as Karen the Jazz singer, Sam's boyfriend Clive, Rich and Clem - Shelley's friends from 1993 and Stella (Ashraf's mistress) and Hazel who were regular characters for a year. I have put some of them on before but they seem to have been removed because they dont have surnames.Gungadin 22:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no rule or we'd have discussed it and it would be here somewhere. They should be listed, as others with no last name are. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 12:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I was told about it in a conversation ages ago, that ones without last names arent wanted etc.here's the conversation. By the way, welcome back AP.Gungadin 13:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that's was something Trampikey decided on his own, there was no community discussion. Obviously characters without articles should be listed, as should characters with no last name. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 14:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I usually only add characters with confirmed last names, but others can be added - I removed Peter because his last name was not pappas, and we don't know who played him, so I thought he was not notable.. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

To expand on my last reply, I think that characters without a last name should only be added if they played a significant role in the series- like the ones Gungadin mentioned above - we don't want to be listing 20 different characters called John - its unrealistic to thin kthat we could have so many character pages... so to summarise, I think characters with no last nam should only be listed if an adequate article can be written about them... like Lydia, Sid, Clint or Ray... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I definitely dont think that all minor characters should have their own page, but I dont see the problem in having them just on this list. The reason being that I sometimes refer to the list when I want to know which actor played who, so others must do it too. Obviously un-named people and one liner extras dont have to be bothered with, but characters who appear across several episodes should.

I also agree that character pages should only be written if we have adequate content for them, but that doesnt just apply to characters with no surnames. We have a lot of very minor characters that have their own pages such as various members of the Pappas family and Kate Chole, who only appeared in one episode and didn't speak. It doesnt make sense that this character was given her own page merely because she has a surname. She wouldnt even be on the list if we only knew her first name because she was so minor

That's not to say I dont appreciate having their character info on here, but I think we should reconsider making a list for these very minor characters. We could possibly do a minor character list by decade or year and have several articles. I know you have been opposed to this in the past Trampikey, but if the list only contained the very very minor characters would you still have a problem? I think it is just a matter of time before this project come under scrutiny from policy pushers, and this could lead to numerous articles being tagged for deletion because they fail notability (Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Wikipedia). It would be a shame to lose all the information that has been included in them. Gungadin 21:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Characters don't need articles to be listed. We don't even have to have red links for them. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If they ever are deleted, then a list can be made, but for now it's fine as it is... I agree with the point about characters who appeared for ages, like Stella, Clem, Lydia etc. - they should have articles. (Sorry for limited replies, btw, I'm on a limited access at the moment as I'm not at home!) -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ugh

I don't mean to moan but of what significance are Kevin and the other girl played by Amanda Holden? And do we have to start putting Misters and Missuses on here? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes because it is a list, so it doesnt matter if they are credited as Mr and Mrs blah! Anyway Mr Opopadoppy is an iconic EE minor, why shouldnt he be included? you seem to have a phobia about characters with only one name being on here, no one else seems to be bothered as per the conversation above. Carmen was a market seller, in it for several weeks, and Kevin was in it for two years. I think they are slightly more notable than characters like Adam Childe. Can you tell me what makes Adam Childe and Al, more important than the characters I just included? Gungadin 22:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just asked about Carmen and Kevin cos I don't know who they are... I don't care about people with first names - but a list full of Misters and Missuses will just end up looking messy like Walford Web... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I still dont get why you think the words Mr and Mrs are messy. It's formal, but not messy and that's what they are credited as, so if it's good enough for EastEnders then it should be good enough for this list. Some that are only credited as Mr or Mrs play a big part in a storyline anyway, such as Mr Conroy or Mrs Andreos, who was in it for a long period of time. I hadnt intended on adding every Mr and Mrs I came across, but really there is no good reason why they shouldnt be on this list, even if they never get added to any of the minor articles. Not all of them have to be red linked if your prefer, or if you are really against it then I dont mind making a list of supporting characters, like Brookside has done.Gungadin 22:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think that if we're not supposed to have Dr., Rev., PC, DS etc. in our article titles that we should start having Mr. and Mrs... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

But you still had an issue with including characters credited as Mr and Mrs even when you were making articles beginning with Dr and Rev. So that cant be your main reason for objecting to their inclusion. You just dont want it because you dont like it, but none of us have the right to cherry pick which cast should be credited based on our personal preferences. Also you have Catherine Tate as Lauren Cooper on the list, so I dont really see how you can be so exclusionary to characters that actually did appear.

There's nothing wrong with them being on the list and no one else has a right to complain or tell us off. They were credited as Mr and Mrs, they appeared in the serial, so we're not breaking any rules by putting them on this list.Gungadin 11:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Legg

Per my recent edit (Left->Last appeared), Dr. Legg, it turns out, isn't on the page at all... :-) Stephenb (Talk) 10:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I think "Last appeared" is better, as a bulk of the characters on there are minor, so didn't leave, they just appeared that year. Thanks for changing it. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Returning characters

To have them listed here as their last appearance is wrong, as because we know they are returning, they haven't actually made their last appearance yet, their last appearance is yet to come. They are listed under "Returning characters" on the current list. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Roger Griffiths

Hi, I recently created the article for Roger Griffiths. His IMDB states his having a recurring role as D.I. Riddick. I haven't seen that character anywhere on the list here; I was wondering if this information from the IMDB was accurate, and if yes, if someone more familiar with the topic could plug him in where applicable in the timeline? (I have no familiarity with EastEnders at all; I created the article because I've done some work with Chef!). Thanks so much if anyone can help me out. Just trying to get some wikilinking for the article. matt91486 (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

His character was brought in to investigate Den Watts' murder in 2005. He arrested Chrisse and Sam. That's him in the background of this image Image:Sharon Rickman LD.EastEnders.jpg. I think he may have also had something to do with Paul Trueman and Andy Hunter in 2004. So you can add him to 2005 section if you like, and he can possibly be added to the List of minor EastEnders characters (2004).Gungadin♦ 17:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added him here but not to the list of minors. ^anemone│_projectors 18:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sections

What do you think about putting the characters into sub-sections for each year, like has been done in the present character list? i.e. guest, recurring etc GunGagdin^Moan 19:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Im taking silence as no objections, but I will see how it looks b4 I go ahead.20:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you ever try it? ^anemone│_projectors 17:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I forgot all about it - see what I mean about discussion though, I was talking to myself! lol GunGagdin^Moan 17:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I'm not sure I like the idea of sub-sections... Hmm, I bet you haven't had as much EE discussion in the last 6 months as you've had in the last 3 days! :) ^anemone│_projectors 17:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I cant say I have. I shall never take you for granted again :) GunGagdin^Moan 17:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Found this

No, not that. This! It's not up to date but it has some names that aren't on this list. Thought it might be of some use. ^anemone│_projectors 17:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sal Martin

Can I ask why we are now treating Sal as a past character? There's been nothing to suggest she won't still be appearing on a recurring basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.200.30 (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, someone decided we should. Storylines suggested that Peggy won't be seeing her again. AnemoneProjectors 21:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be reverted then until a suitable source is provided. It's not possible to ascertain from current episodes of the show that this will be the case yet.

I have undone all the related edits already. AnemoneProjectors 22:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Including characters on this list

I've just added two characters who were on 2011's "others" section as they appeared in more than one episode. Is this a good idea? We probably shouldn't include every character, but should we include those who appeared in more than one? –AnemoneProjectors– 14:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Peggy, Simon & David

There are rumours that they're returning, but shouldn't they be restored to the list until there's actual proof of their return? --82.10.203.103 (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes totally. Doing it now –AnemoneProjectors– 15:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sharon

She's been removed. Is she definitely returning? --86.31.61.220 (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems so yes. GSorby – Ping 20:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes she is. YAY! –AnemoneProjectors– 15:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Characters who appeared for one or two episodes?

What is the point of adding them to the list, it all seems cluttered up, I know the more information the better, but shouldn't characters with their own articles or characters with a section on their respective year articles be the ones listed on here? The ones who only have a tiny amount of information and are considered minor characters just take up too much room. The list would look better if the first three names where Heather Trott, Amira Masood and Jane Beale, not all those forgettable police. Reli source (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe, but to me it made sense that any character listed on the present characters list (that means any considered a "recurring" or "guest" character, who appeared in more than one episode (as that is how many episodes needed to be listed in that section), would be transfered from that list to this one once they had left. Otherwise we are losing the information. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Who cares?? These characters are SO minor, and they are already included in the various year lists of characters. Why should someone like Nico Papadolpoulos have an entry here when he has had literally 2 lines in the soap!!??!! ANd by the way AP you just did Bold, revert, revert - Not following wiki policies again?

Revert revert revert revert revert revert. Do you think we should put any "others" on this list? I think it should be any character who was supposed to be on list of EastEnders characters (the whole point of this list), meaning any character who was in more than one episode, as they would have been listed as either recurring or guest. –AnemoneProjectors– 14:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

But we have never defined what makes a character recurring? I really dont think a character that appears in 2 episodes deserves so much. Bleaney (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No we haven't, but we've tried so many times to define what makes a character regular and we just can't. But in these cases, it's clear that they're just guest characters appearing in multiple episodes. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

And so therefore, should they even be included on this list? Bleaney (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. This list has not been defined other than "a list of characters". But the guideline on lists says that list entries should be those that made a notable contribution. Perhaps they can go, but how do we decide who should go? Also, I'd like more opinions. –AnemoneProjectors–

Maybe those with their own page or section in the lists? ie no 'others'? Bleaney (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Table format

After the good feedback about adding durations to the present character list, I thought it might be a good idea to suggest the same for the past character list and to turn the past list into a table format like the other EE lists. As this is only a proposal and as the past character list is quite long, I only made a sample of characters who last appeared in 2012. Also, I didn't add minor characters (by minor, I mean ones who don't have their own articles or section, and whos information is lumped into the 'Others' section. I added recurring character Jill Marsden who has her own article, although not sure if she will not appear anymore, but she was placed on the list tonight, Lorraine Stevens - another recurring character - has a section on the 1991 list and a good bit of information, George Trott, although uncredited, he was connected to well known characters and has the potential to return one day. I feel the page would look a lot tidier without all these minor characters, I only really omitted characters like the officers investigating Heather's murder, and the guy who was with Christian briefly, as they had no major significance. Your opinions would be greatly needed. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the format changes, but please don't remove any of the characters listed. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I agree this list is rediculously longh, why the hell are we adding minor characters to this list who have only had a couple of lines? Bleaney (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

AnemoneProjectors I didn't remove anyone, I just made a rough example. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Good, I thought you were planning to remove them, as you explained what you had done in great detail. Bleaney, these are characters who belong in the "present: recurring or guest" section, therefore when they depart, they then get moved to the past list. Only single-episode characters do not get listed. However, this is nothing to do with what Livin'InAGhostTown wants to do. –AnemoneProjectors– 12:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Bleaney, the above section relates to what you're talking about. –AnemoneProjectors– 12:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I never intended to remove anyone, I just didn't know much about the minor characters listed, and wasn't in the mood to research them, I think the usual table format would work better for this list. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Has there been anymore thought on this discussion? Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think you should just go ahead and make changes. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The table format and the dashes need sorting. I've already changed the first two, so use that format to do the rest. - JuneGloom Talk 01:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, only noticed this now, but thanks, I havn't added the dates for everyone yet, some minor characters for example, but will get on it, and I didn't watch EE prior to 2009, so don't know loads about characters who last appeared before then, but will still work at it. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Reason for leave

Would this page work if it were written like this article?. Again, this is purely a question. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, as that's in-universe information, and it could end up very cluttered and complicated. It's only a list of characters. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the table format idea, but adding reasons for leave does not look good, Wikia is more of a less formal Wiki, so it suits Wikia more Reli source (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

List is way too detailed

The new format is spot on, but the list is too overpopulated, look at the 2012 list for example, it is only May and the world and its dog have appeared on the neverending 2012 list, it should really only include significant characters, who have their own articles or section (ie. ones who appeared on the list of current characters), it seems silly to put every character on this list, despite their unimportance, the first three names are a perfect example, Jill Marsden deserves to be on the list as she has an article, Lorraine Stevens deserves to be there as she has a section, but Nico Papadapolous, he only redirects onto a minor list, so perhaps a discussion on omitting minor characters would be good Shape-shifter mikw (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. Bleaney (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree also, there are too many minor characters and they have never appeared on the current list, so no point of them really, characters like Heather Trott and Jane Beale, and even Marsden and Lorraine deserve to be on the list, as they have all contributed to the stoylines, the officers investigating Heather's murder and Nico are not really relevant to the show, also the list would look much tidier if it only included important characters, and you wouldn't have to go through a list of characters who are insignificant. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree. This should really only contain the more notable characters. Should we take off anyone stuck in an "others" section? –AnemoneProjectors– 13:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be best. Bleaney (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that all characters in Others should be removed. Some characters have had a prominent role in a storyline or appeared over a long period of time. Just because they haven't got any development info doesn't mean they have to be excluded from the past characters list. Perhaps a new criteria for inclusion should be introduced? Something like "A character in the Others section that has appeared for more than 5/10/15 episodes can be added to the past list." - JuneGloom Talk 14:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I prefer that, June! A week is 4 episodes... so we could say that. Or 5, or 10... It's certainly better than just two episodes. –AnemoneProjectors– 14:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I'm just wondering why User:Shape-shifter mikw's only edit is this request... –AnemoneProjectors– 14:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think a week sounds fair amount of time for inclusion. AP makes a good point too - it is a shame when people rule break to get their own road.Rain the 1 15:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? How am I breaking rules? There are a lot of articles on here that I think are in poor condition, yet I didn't want to just edit them, I thought I would start a discussion after seeing how active the talk page is, I plan to make other change requests soon, I won't lose any sleep over this article, just thought as Wikipedia is for everyone why not join. Is there are a rule that you have to be here a year before requesting an edit??? Shape-shifter mikw (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope. - JuneGloom Talk 18:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have always liked the idea of having a list for 'past' sundry appearances in EE. So we save this list for only notable characters. I do think it woould be a nice to have a list including all the sundry characters for historical purposes, but I agree that there is a wealth of difference between regulars etc and a policeman with one line.GunGagdin^Moan 18:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That actually sounds like a great idea, it means everyone is happy Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

However, a week is different to four episodes. Someone could be in it for a period of time longer than a week but actually only appear in two episodes. So perhaps we should say four episodes. Surely four episode characters will have had more than just a minor little thing. Plus we can keep any who have a list entry, like Les Coker, who was only in one episode, but has reception info. Gungadin, I kind of agree with you - but we do have the "others" for this. Maybe we can work on filling out those sections with some of the characters who have red links in this article (see section below). –AnemoneProjectors– 09:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say 5 episodes - 5 is one more than a weeks worth, and I think a character only appearing a couple of times in a week is not notable. 5 at least shows that the character was worth more than 1 week in Albert Square's history at least... Bleaney (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think it will be very difficult to agree on a number, so why not start by removing all two- and three- episode characters first, and seeing which four-episode characters there are that would be removed if we decided on that. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Would an 'others' section or seperate page be a good idea? It would mean the usual past character list would include the past regular/recurring characters (ie. characters who appeared on the current character list and who's exit would have been announced etc.). Then the other list could feature the less important characters. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Im decidedly nervous about having separate lists for minor or major characters. We had them before, and in essence they became a huge bit of original research. the fact is that WE (usually) decide if a character is a major, minor or 'other' and we regularly get it wrong. I think its best to keep the lists together. Bleaney (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No, we should not have two lists by splitting this one in to two. We can remove minor characters from here, and they will be preserved in the "by year" lists in "others" sections, where they already are (older ones that are missing can be worked on). –AnemoneProjectors– 13:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I just think we should have two critera's; a) if there notable, make it out of "others", or appear for more than 4 episodes, maybe not in order? — M.Mario (T/C) 19:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're suggesting, sorry Mario. –AnemoneProjectors– 12:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If a character gets development info (references outside) and gets moved out of the others table, then they should be on the list. If the character appears more than four times (a week episodes) or four episodes throughout the year, then they should be in the list. Better? — M.Mario (T/C) 12:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I will just say this first, I am not overly bothered either way what's decided, but just playing devil's advocate here....Why is 4 episodes the magic number? What makes a character who appears in four episodes more notable than one that appears in 3? Doesnt it depend on the significance of the role the character has? We could add all the recurring social workers, policemen, priests etc onto the list, who collectively might have appeared more than Lofty's aunt Irene or Clare Butcher for instance, but the former are still less important (glorified) extras that no one other than die hard fans would know of. I wonder whether putting all major contracted characters in Bold would suffice instead of a cull? GunGagdin^Moan 17:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the difficulty of it all. The significance of any of these lesser appearing characters is all so subjective, and for the older lists, almost impossible to source! At least with an episode rule its a quantifiable thing. But I understand what your saying Gungadin. Bleaney (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps we should only use this list for major, contracted characters and recurring characters like aunt Sal and Lorraine? As AP says above, we have the yearly character lists for everyone else, so perhaps we shouldnt cloud things with this list? 4 episodes is still miniscule in the grand scheme of EE.GunGagdin^Moan 18:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I was suggesting 4 episodes as it's a way of not losing loads of characters and perhaps we don't want to lose them all, and 4 is a week's worth. Maybe instead, we should discuss the list year by year. Start with 2012, and try to agree who we think should be removed. Then remove them, and discuss 2011. What are people's thoughts on that? –AnemoneProjectors– 11:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

So nobody's made a start on this, or even thought I had a good idea there... but I'll start the ball rolling by not adding 3-episode character DS Kain! –AnemoneProjectors– 14:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's funny how User:Shape-shifter mikw never returned to make those change requests... - JuneGloom Talk 16:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Rebooted

Is this discussion still going? I will help make a start on removing any two episode characters, if it is still going ahead. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you should. But only if they are in "others". –AnemoneProjectors– 12:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've now removed the 2 ep characters for 2012 and am about to add the 4 and 5 ep characters that aren't already listed. –AnemoneProjectors– 10:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

2002 list is not in correct order

The most recent to depart is usually at the top of the list, but Steve Owen was at the top and he left early that year, I've moved around some characters to their proper order, (Steve, Mel, Beppe, and Tom and Trevor who died the same episode). Also many of the characters on the part of the list are wiki linked but have no article or information at all. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Most of the red linked characters are old ones that we must have found somewhere but haven't put a list entry for. Chances are they're not notable and would go in the cull of short-term characters. Thanks for changing the order. Some are not in the right order as the right order wasn't always known. –AnemoneProjectors– 09:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Could we tidy up the way durations are listed?

Why have they suddenly become 2011-2012 rather than 2011-12. ? Surely the entire four digits are not needed for the departing year, unless the duration reads as 1999-2012. Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A random person has been doing it, so we need to clean it up. –AnemoneProjectors– 11:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I've now done all of this. –AnemoneProjectors– 10:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Should John and Nina be included here?

I thought the new rule was four episodes, they were only there for two. Reli source (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, we hadn't really implemented it yet, I had just excluded one character! But I think that as John and Nina were reported on and had other sources, and John isn't in the "others" list, we should keep them here. I think we were considering four eps for anyone in "others", otherwise if they have a separate list entry or article, they stay here even if it was one episode. So at least John should stay for that reason. –AnemoneProjectors– 12:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed the 2 ep characters, but left John and Nina. I think at least John should stay, having his own section. But that would mean adding Jimmy and Pete to the list as they also have sections. –AnemoneProjectors– 10:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Page messed up

what idiot has messed the page up? Is it really that hard to add Zainab and Kamil. Syed and Derek both appeared last in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.101.163 (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The vandalism was reverted. –AnemoneProjectors– 22:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Spin-off characters

I noticed that this list contains some characters who didn't appear in EastEnders but in some of its spin-offs. I have removed those from Slaters in Detention and put them on List of EastEnders spin-off characters along with the main characters who appeared, and just left it as a basic list format. As part of the cleanup of this list (removing characters who appeared in just a few episodes), other spin-off characters should be moved there. –AnemoneProjectors– 11:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Characters

Hi just thought I should check before editing, do all the red link characters need sections in List of character years articles? Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kelvin 101: Probably just need putting in "others", as the red links were probably added at a time when we thought it was ok to have separate articles for even the most minor of characters! But I would suggest not creating redirects, just replacing the links so they link to the relevant list entry without the need for creating a redirect - but if you find real-world information (seems unlikely), then they can go in a separate section and a redirect could be created. Thank you! anemoneprojectors 10:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of past EastEnders characters. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051028032235/http://www.walfordweb.co.uk/walfordweb/whoswho.php to http://www.walfordweb.co.uk/walfordweb/whoswho.php

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) 05:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Vinent Hubbard

No idea why he was removed --Theudariks (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Article title

I have opened a discussion here to discuss the article title potentially being changed from "past" to "former" – feel free to join in on the discussion! – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 13:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Where's Ian Beale?

He's left, he's not in the current cast list, shouldn't he be on this list? 2A00:23C6:3639:1701:C151:2D93:5DAE:15CE (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Changes

Since the changes have been reverted twice now, I wanted to start a discussion. The characters are now in chronological order (e.g. the character who has departed the most recently is at the bottom) and this is now consistent with the List of former Coronation Street characters and List of former Emmerdale characters pages. If you oppose or support it, please write your comments down below so we can have a better discussion rather than reverting 😊. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, this doesn't need support or opposition, and any reverts back to the old format will be classed as vandalism. The list is now placed in chronological order per WP:SALORDER and it is the correct format. – Meena • 17:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean it in a rude way. I support this way but I wanted to start a discussion rather than get in an edit war with IPs/any users. Sorry :( DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)