Jump to content

Talk:Peggy Mitchell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePeggy Mitchell 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
DateProcessResult
July 6, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
April 18, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Ga Failing

[edit]

No references, yeah that's it. The captions could do with full stops too. Yeah. Highway Batman! 21:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, perhaps more importantly, is that the article is entirely written from an "in universe" perspective, which is contrary to the Manual of Style. Please read the Writing About Fiction Guideline for ideas on how to rewrite the article in an encyclopedic style. Phidauex 21:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grandchildren section

[edit]

Does anyone else feel that this section is not needed in this article? They each have their own article and the information is not really relevant to Peggy's storylines Gungadin 15:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 18:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

possible sources

[edit]

Barbara pleads for less Peggy romance? - ironic with the reported love interest of Archie Mitchell? anemone│projectors 12:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wycombe leader urges women to follow example of soap Who'd've thunk it? anemone│projectors 20:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reception or breast cancer

[edit]

Do you think that stuff on the be=reast cancer storyline that ive added to reception would be better under "breast cancer"? I'm thinking it's more reception to the storyline than to Peggy. What do you think?Gungadin 00:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be under "Reception". -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be critical, but in the "Breat cancer" section, it says "a member of the EastEnders production team..." way too many times. Is there another phrase we can use to substitute some of them? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Production crew, an EastEnders representative perhaps? They dont give names or specific job titles, so i'm not sure what else can be said. I have no idea if a member of th production team is necessarily a producer, else I'd suggest using "an EastEnders producer". I know nothing about television media whatsoever.Gungadin

Quote

[edit]

"That “Kill him!” Oh, I didn’t want to do that. But there we go, she didn’t know what she was saying, she was having a nervous breakdown." [3]. Thought it would be interesting if the development section is expanded to include her marriage to Archie. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 18:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE NOW! Should Peggy Mitchell be on the Fictional erotic dancers category.

[edit]

It has been revealed during Peggy's political campaign that she was a pole dancer for the '60s gangland. Everyone in Walford found out about this part of her past and Peggy gradually became open towards it and used it in her speech at The Vic.

I find it absolutely ludicrous that people won't accept her as a fictional erotic dancer, however, I am given the power to anyone so it could be a democratic poll. Remember Peggy's pole dancing photo was on the Walford Gazette and she even put a photograph of this in her pub.

Please consider carefully about this.

Yours sincerely,

The 12th Doctor

Regular Editor of EastEnders

P.S. The power is in your hands. Do not be dictated.--The Twelfth Doctor (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that we don't accept that she was once an erotic dancer, it's just that it's not important nor is it defining of her character. I honestly don't see the point of this, because Wikipedia doesn't work on a number of votes, it works on consensus, and consensus has already been reached with the creation of the WP:CAT guideline. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 19:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Twelfth Doctor, have you actually read WP:CAT and taken on board the comments of the multiple editors who've now explained this to you? It seems that your rationale for inclusion is unchanging, and as such, you're just going to be met with the same response repeatedly... Frickative 20:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this argument still going on?! I agree that the category shouldn't be included but maybe a line or two about the work she did back then could be included in her backstory? Is that a reasonable solution?Cutekitten05 (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Winton and Alan Carr (Peggy's characterisation)

[edit]

I just lost my internet connection as I sent this, but never mind... Barbara Windsor was interviewed today by Dale Winton on Steve Wright's Radio 2 show, and lots of stuff was mentioned that could be used here. She said she bases Peggy on three people, one of them being Vi Kray, and apparently she denied that before. And she talked about kissing scenes being cut. I didn't hear the whole thing but it should be in iPlayer later. I would strongly recommend that someone listens to it for inclusion in this article before it's no longer available (after a week). Also, don't forget she's on Alan Carr's Chatty Man this Sunday, so maybe we can get some info from that too. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too late! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a shame, but you can put in the personality bit that she has later retracted the comment about Vi Kray in 2009, claiming that she has influenced her portrayal of Peggy.GunGagdinMoan 12:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The three people she said she bases Peggy on are Vi Kray, her mother and Mike Reid. She said she refused to do kissing scenes with Larry Lamb because fans of the show don't want to see people of their age kissing! Not sure how to cite a radio show. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Reid! I dont see the similarity, Babs.GunGagdinMoan 15:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something to do with her personality, maybe her Cockneyness. Can't really remember! But she did say Mike Reid! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out it wasn't Mike Reid but his wife Shirley. I'm watching Windsor's interview with Piers Morgan and she said she based Peggy's look on Violet Kray, her temper on Shirley Reid and her snobbishness on her own mother. This part needs to be rewritten because it reads kind of wrong. AnemoneProjectors 21:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New sources

[edit]

I'm not sure if the sources in the sources section above have been used in the article, but here are some more:

Also, I think as Windsor is leaving, it would be nice to get this up to at least GA standard. Who's with me? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and:
Agreed it would be nice to get this up to GA level. It's in pretty great shape already, especially compared to the version put up for GA 3 years ago lol [4]. Some of the fair-use images might have to go, and the recent plot needs tightening up a bit, but doing that is about my favourite thing on Wikipedia for some reason, so I'll give it a trim this evening. I'm checking through the refs as well, standardising the parameters, checking for deadlinks etc. Fun fun fun. Frickative 16:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to see it reach GA. The whole Archie romance/wedding needs to be written up in OOU fashion, as well as the departure stuff. Think there was quite a bit in that secret mitchell EE Revealed docu that was relevant for Peggy's page too.GunGagdinMoan 16:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still listed as a GA nominee? How long is it going to take now? I know it takes a long time. But the article still isn't finished. I remembered something that could be mentioned. Was it Alastair Campbell who gave advice on Peggy's council campaign? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a191164/johnsons-eastenders-cameo-toned-down.html AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that "Windsor refutes" source is about her denying a bust up, but according to this, Larry Lamb was misquoted and it's not true. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a good source for Barbara Windsor's bio article too. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems I got confused back in December, as it wasn't nominated (I did work that out a while back in a conversation with Frickative), but it's been nominated now so we should try to work these sources in, as the last major update was back in November - since then it's just been plot and minor stuff. anemoneprojectors talk 01:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if any of the above sources got used yet but adding this to the list: What are soaps' most bizarre recasts? Not sure if it's worth using here but you never know. AnemoneProjectors 02:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another source - [5]RaintheOne BAM 19:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free media

[edit]

Just wanted to flag this up for discussion - if we're aiming for GA, I think having 7 pieces of non-free media in the article is too much. I think the infobox images and Peggy in 1995 are perfectly justifiable on the grounds of visual identification, and the post re-cast image is well discussed in the creation section, but I don't think the others are as easily defensible. The screenshots are iconic moments, but, we don't discuss the images themselves, and don't really need illustration to show that Peggy and Frank got married, or that Peggy got a bit slap-happy. Same with the last one, it's interesting that Peggy was spoofed on 2D:TV, but we don't have anything discussing the image itself, so it's not really serving an encyclopaedic purpose. Same again with the sound file - although we reference that it is her catchphrase, we don't need to hear her say it to know that, and though I've had a search, I haven't been able to find any additional sources to bolster it, such as why that phrase was decided on, who developed it etc. Although I don't think the article would be straight out failed on the grounds of too much non-free content, Wikipedia seems to be getting a lot tougher on copyright issues of late, and I think a decent review would ask for at least a few to be cut, so we may as well discuss ahead of time which we could bear to lose. Frickative 20:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should lose the 2DTV, wedding and slap pictures. I'm wondering if we can get away with the sound file, though I wouldn't miss it if it went. Talking of images, I actually think it looks kind of maybe a bit sort of odd with the free images! Even though it was kind of my idea to use them in articles. Not saying they should go, it's a good idea :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I know what you mean about the free images, it was kind of pushing it to make some of them relevant to the sections they were placed in. It was really hard to read the text through with it all unbroken for paragraphs upon paragraphs at a time though. Once I've finished expanding the development section, I'll maybe see about switching some out for text boxes of quotes or something that'll do the same job of breaking the page up a bit. I sort of ridiculously really want to use one of BoJo though! Frickative 22:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a bit of commentary about the slap scene at the end of the Frank development section, so i'm wondering if that one is ok to keep, moving it there?GunGagdinMoan 16:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2012

[edit]

For those who keep adding this to the infobox: Windsor may want to return in 2012, but notghing has been confirmed, so until that happens, the duration should not state that she will definitely return in 2012.GunGagdinMoan 16:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, she just said she wants to come back. It doesn't mean she will. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has just been confirmed that there are no plans for Peggy to return in 2012 - or any other time. She has effectively left the show for good (any talk of return is pure speculation at the moment). [6] Familiae Watt§ (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We knew that there were no plans for her to return in 2012 because it was just her saying she wanted to. It doesn't mean she never will return. They're just saying they haven't entered into discussions, not that she won't return. It makes sense seeing as they haven't even planned her departure yet. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I included the link so as to forestall people from modifying over the confusion of her coming back. Of course she could return - Reg Cox could return - but until there is an announcement to the contrary, she is not coming back. I remember all the speculation and assumptions about Sharon returning after her departure in 06. I was probably a bit dramatic is saying "for good" but in my defense I did qualify the statement. Familiae Watt§ (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for Sharon to return from her temporary departure. They way she left made it seem like she was only going for a few months. At least with Peggy, it's clear that she has quit and may not return. But deep down we all know she will. Reg Cox will return for the very last episode when it turns out it was all a dream. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lol! I do agree, deep down, that she will be back. And agree 100% on Sharon too - imo Harwood did really poor exits (only Dennis' was any good). Familiae Watt§ (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I would say that Windsor has now completely ruled out a return. Based on her reasons for leaving, I couldn't see her ever wanting to come back anyway. AnemoneProjectors 11:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be difficult AP - I feel I should point that out - but I'm not sure this information about ruling out a return should be included. I have watched the interview she did with Piers Morgan (the Sun article quotes from this) and she makes no reference to this. It seems the journos latched on to something and made a big deal of it when it was never really said and if it was said then it was not as big a deal as they have made it sound as I can't even recall it being said. Perhaps the quotes have been taken out of context. In the past Lindsey Coulson and Patsy Palmer have both 'ruled out' returns too. I don't see a need for including this information on a character page. It would be more suited to the EE section on the Barbara Windsor article, if anywhere, as it is more about the actress. At the very least a brief return for Peggy several years down the line seems almost inevitable. However I'm willing to be persuaded by your argument for including the info.

To me it seems premature at this stage as there would be no question of the character returning so soon anyway - like with any character. So what's so important about including the 'no return' info for Peggy. I don't think anyone would expect her to return so soon as returns are never usually in question until at least a few years down the line.

Just thought I'd raise it anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.108.72 (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creation

[edit]

There's a short interview with Steve McFadden in next week's Radio Times about the casting of Barbara Windsor. If no one else can get access to it then I'll try to find some time to incorporate the info. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be buying it specially so it would be really helpful, thanks! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey nice tidbits! Thanks for doing that. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Peggy Mitchell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: I found and fixed two disambiguations.diff

Linkrot: I found three dead links to The Times, but they are now live. Please note that all News International titles, The Times, Sunday Times, The Sun, News of the World will become pay per view from June 2010.

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The word "coupling" is used twice to describe the pairing of Frank and Peggy."Coupling" does have some connotations: "The act of uniting sexually." Might I suggest "pairing off" or something else? (NB not a GA requirement)
    ...rebuffed Frank's attempt at reconciliation and left him to depart the serial alone. Could we tweak this a bit - it mixes the in-universe world of the soap with the real world of leaving the cast of the series.  Done
    This now reads ...rebuffed Frank's attempt at reconciliation and left him to depart alone. anemoneprojectors talk 20:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a few minor copy-edits.diff
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Windsors final scenes will be filmed in July 2010 and aired around September 2010,[citation needed] almost a year after she announced her exit. Citation needed tag. This stray sentence should consolidated with the previous paragraph as well.  Done
    I have removed that line as as far as I know the only source about her final scenes were to say she leaves in July, but it was unclear if it meant she ends filming then or that's when the episodes are shown. Something will come up to support it in the future, I'm sure. anemoneprojectors talk 20:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, just the three dead links, noted above, to be resolved. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I didn't see that at the top there. I checked the three links you marked as dead but they're not dead. I'm guessing the pay-per-view thing isn't a problem at the moment, but we can archive them manually before then to save searching in future. Is this something that will happen to all articles on that date or is it a time thing? Because I know lots of old pages for those pages are still there if you have the direct url. Sorry, it's nothing to do with this GA but if it's happening for every news item for those papers then it's going to affect lots of articles. anemoneprojectors talk 21:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, they are live now, must be a temporary thing. WebCite is a useful tool for archiving news links which are likely to rot. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All other references check out, are RS and support the cited statements.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Thorough and well focussed
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Just a few isues above to be addressed. On Hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, every thing is good now, so I am happy to list this as a Good Article. Congratulations! –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sound clip

[edit]

I found the sound clip to be far too loud. Is it just my speakers or do we need a quieter alternative?--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 20:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will obtain a cleaner one. --GSorbyDesroid 21:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is rather loud. GSorbyDesroid do you know how to do sounds for Wikipedia? AnemoneProjectors 01:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. It's in .ogg format right? --GSorbyDesroid 10:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I just tried to listen to it and the speakers crackled under the tremendous volume! At least I can trust some people on Wikipedia to be nice to a simple request :) --Editor510 drop us a line, mate 09:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I'm just about to do. I think Trampikey just put a mic up to the speakers, hence why it's really distorted and loud. --GSorbyDesroid 10:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's what I think he did as well, which is really silly. I think he did the theme tune clip in the same way. That that one's not too bad because music samples are meant to be low quality on Wikipedia. AnemoneProjectors 10:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done! It's a lot cleaner too! Can I say that I cried in last nights episode! :'( --GSorbyDesroid 10:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. Was that from the "I heart Peggy" site? Cos it's the exact same clip. AnemoneProjectors 11:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was from the 'I heart Peggy' site. :) --GSorbyDesroid 11:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to thank you for your quick response. You really are all saints.--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 16:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Alhough I'm not a Christian, I'm in fact an atheist.[reply]

New image

[edit]

Peggy needs a new pic because the one she has is 2 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.23.57 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No she doesn't. Image don't need to be updated. The one we have is fine, it shows the character in a typical look. AnemoneProjectors 20:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, she hasnt changed in those 2 years anyway. Same wig, and unless you've counted the wrinkles, her face hasnt changed either. I cant keep up with all these image changes. They are getting changed every other day in some cases and not all of them are improvements. I dont see the point.GunGagdinMoan 12:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duration change!

[edit]

I think Peggy's duration should be like this: 1994–2003, 2004, 2005–10, 2013, seeming as the break she took in 2003 was more than a year long, like Phil's duration. Tinamckintyre23 (Come and talk!) 10:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:EE uses a calendar year though.Rain the 1 17:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we use a calendar year, so even if the break was 3 months or 23 months, as long as she left in 2003 and returned in 2004, we combine it. –AnemoneProjectors– 19:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and I think we should keep it like that, these infoboxes get so cluttered! Bleaney (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But she didn't return in 2004, she left in 2003 and returned in 2005. Therefore, more than one year. So I think her duration should be like this: 1994–2003, 2005–10, 2013. Tinamckintyre23 (Come and talk!) 17:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall she did return in 2004 for 1 or 2 episodes... wasn't it for Sams's wedding to Andy? Bleaney (talk)

The article says "returning briefly to attend her daughter Sam's wedding to local businessman Andy Hunter" which was indeed in 2004. Stephenb (Talk) 17:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that was in March 2005. Maybe your memory is wrong. Tinamckintyre23 (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Hunter's last episode was 18 February 2005, according to his article. Stephenb (Talk) 20:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just watched the 26 May 2005 episode on YouTube, and he's still in it. Tinamckintyre23 (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny - the writer of this article [7] must be psychic, then, as it was written in February 2005...? Please stop disrupting articles. Stephenb (Talk) 21:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And to add to that, I've just checked YouTube too, and he doesn't appear in that episode, of course. Stephenb (Talk) 21:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And he was in the cast list for the 26 May 2005 episode, according to the BBC, EastEnders's OFFICAL source for everything. Tinamckintyre23 (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that. Link? Stephenb (Talk) 21:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have one at the minute as I'm on a mobile, but I'll find one when I get off it and put it on here. Tinamckintyre23 (Come and talk!) 08:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. And very clever of you to avoid the Tag "Mobile edit" for that last post here... Stephenb (Talk) 09:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't find a link, as the BBC EastEnders cast list for that episode seems to have closed....? Odd.... Tinamckintyre23 (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked IMDB and according to this Andy Hunter did not appear in the episode dated 26th May 2005. Maybe you watched a different episode on Youtube? Either way please stop trying to disrupt articles or one of us admins will have to become involved--5 albert square (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Hunter's last appearance was on 18 February 2005 as was Den Watts' last appearance. They both died on the same episode. Peggy Mitchell returned on 16 & 17 September 2004 for the wedding of her daughter and Andy. Tinamcintyre23, do us all a favour and please stop making things up as it is getting on everyone's nerves. Thank you. GeorgePing! 00:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore Tinamckintyre23, she's making things up again. –AnemoneProjectors– 16:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rule was originally twelve months not 'calendar year' when did it change and was it a change that people agreed on or is it something else one person, who likes to control these articles, cooked up and everyone else had to go with? What's the point in having rules if they are not consistent and keep being chopped and changed all the time. Peggy was away from May 2003 until September 2004 that is over one year. She was then away for a further year until September 2005. Like David she only returned as a guest character between her two stints, so I believe her duration should read 1991, 1994-2003, 2004, 2005-2010, 2013. Who cares about the infoboxes being 'cluttered' if the information provided is accurate. Having five durations is hardly 'cluttered'. Some of the Corrie articles have more durations than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.105.54 (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was always a calendar year, not 12 months. It was agreed by WikiProject EastEnders members. –AnemoneProjectors– 21:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I recall it being twelve months, which seems a lot more reasonable, unless someone made a mistake on one of the talk pages when discussing the rule. Nothing will change your mind, however that isn't going to stop me from having an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.105.54 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013

[edit]

Peggy wasn't living in Cornwall in 2013 she was holidaying there, with Phil planning to meet her with Lexi. When she returned in September 2013 she mentioned getting a flight to London, and said she wasn't staying and was going back to Portugal, so she was already living in Portugal by this point. This article is misleading. As is the part about visiting Dot following Nick's death as it implies that she knew about Nick's death and showed up to help Dot - when, in reality, she actually showed up to have a go at her over Nick cutting the brakes and setting up Phil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.222.223 (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

I don't know if I agree with the image of a near death Peggy being used here. And if we are to use it, can we make it so that it's better cropped? GunGagdinMoan 00:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image was uploaded to Commons and deleted as it's not allowed there. The current image is fine, though. It's more representitive of Peggy as a whole. anemoneprojectors 08:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Peggy Mitchell. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Peggy Mitchell. 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) 05:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peggy Mitchell. 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) 13:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Peggy's full name included

[edit]

have added Peggy's full name (Margaret Anne) as it is mentioned in the show.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peggy_Mitchell&oldid=1251198384"