Talk:Sam Mitchell (EastEnders)

Titles

What does everyone think of all these titles that have been added to this article? I think they look messy and they aren't needed either. Gungadin 13:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

IBOX

AP, let me know your thoughts on the box when you notice this.Gungadin♦ 23:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Lollage. Yeah it looks ok. Not sure about the second image, actually, but it's something that will grow on me. ^anemoneI_projectors 23:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean about the image, but I think it's because Daniella westbrook looks fluorescent in that image. I will try and find a better one and see if that changes our opinions.Gungadin♦ 23:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because there's nothing above it to separate it from the text, like there is when an album or single has a second image at the bottom. ^anemoneI_projectors 23:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyway that we could put a blue frame bar above the pic, but make it so that it was optional? So that we can include it only when we use 2 images? otherwise we can change it around and have the family drop section above the image? Gungadin♦ 00:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can make it so there's a blue bar if there's a second image, but it might be complicated so I'd need to try to figure it out. ^anemoneI_projectors 21:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It took me this long to work it out, but I've got it right! There's always a |- hanging around when I try to do clever things with templates! What would you like your blue bar's caption to say? :) ^anemoneI_projectors 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That looks much better, thanku for doing it. Do you prefer it now? By caption do you mean the place where it says "Altenative image"? That sounds ok to me, or we could have former actor I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gungadin (talk • contribs) 22:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think "Alternate image" is fine. I came up with it last minute. Copied the "alternate cover" bit for singles. Yeah I do prefer it now. How long until we merge the two infoboxes so they're all the same? :) ^anemoneI_projectors 22:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We could do it any time you like. I was going to put in more fields for other family members. I'm keen to do this so that we can get rid of those overlong family section on all the bloody Falhertys and Liam Butcher. I think it looks weird when the family section is so big and there's only a line or two of writing. All the characters can have a complete infobox family section, except Pauline, because it would never be allowed ;) Speaking of Pauline's ibox, I noticed that someone removed 'status = deceased' (lol). I'm giving up on that article now, im so bored of debating over her. My opinions are always automatically incorrect, and even if I or others object, certain individuals just do things the way they want regardless. OOU info has been cut and I'm not happy with the enforcement of ambiguous guidelines like 'Tense', especially as the changes are based on someone's interpretation of the guideline and nothing else. And we got an oppose because one word was "is" instead of "was", which is what the guideline tells us to do!! Are you feeling like me too? (I notice you've given up on all the debating also :)Gungadin♦ 00:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Because of the family section, changing the userboxes needs to be done manually on each page, so it'll take a long time! It's not a simple move/redirect/change of a template. Pauline's status was removed because she has a date of death, meaning it's obvious that she's dead. Can't really disagree with that. I hardly follow the FA debate let alone get involved! I want it to pass but it is annoying. I didn't know OOU stuff had been removed though. What like? ^anemoneI_projectors 00:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I sent you an email via wiki to explain some things, let me know if you get it. Regarding the family issue, I still think we could swap it over now without any problems. The list of family in a character with an original ibox, will move into the collapsible menu. But this wont matter because we have a field for 'family' within the dropdown menu. It's meant for the family articles (like Beales/Fowlers), but without a family article link, the field will just list the family the way they were in the original infobox (non-specific like Grant, Phil Courtney etc). This way we could add sibling children field at our own pace. Would that not work? Gungadin♦ 02:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah that would work. The easiest way would be to either redirect the first template to the new one, or delete the first one and move the new one - or even copy and paste the new one to the old one, and redirect the new one, thus retaining the entire history of the first one. And I did get your email, thanks. ^anemoneI_projectors 10:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the last option sounds best, so we can keep the former one in the edit history.Gungadin♦ 17:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sams arrested0.jpg

Image:Sams arrested0.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) 04:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sam andy hunter.jpg

Image:Sam andy hunter.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) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Stars on Westbrook's return

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8042316.stm a video of Scott Maslen and Rita Simons talking about it to the BBC. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

screenie from trailer

Should we? GunGagdin^Moan 19:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's premature, I think it should be a screenshot from an episode. I don't like the blue background. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Will make sure I get an episode screenie next week when she comes back on Fri. will it do for a week? Loving that they have brought her back and not Kim Medcalf. Kim was never Sam to me.GunGagdin^Moan 23:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it'll do for the week. It's so easy to forget they played the same character and I'll find it hard to associate Westbrook's Sam with the Den and Chrissie storylines. Right now, to me, Sam Mitchell is Kim Medcalf. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised I thought it would be the opposite for you as you would have been just pre-teens when Westbrook played her, so you grew up with her, like i did.GunGagdin^Moan 00:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know but for some reason I can't really remember Danniella as Sam very well. I'm sure it'll change when she's back but I don't think I'll ever be able to connect them as the same character properly (though I never had a problem with other recasts!). AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Has she really gone?

It's just that her contract of 3 months was extended slightly but she hasn't been on screen for 3 months yet. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think she'll be back, but there's no confirmation.GunGagdin^Moan 14:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to treat last night as her last appearance until we hear otherwise. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

She will return at Christmas as her 3 month contract runs out.--Sheep 2009 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a (reliable) source? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

NO but you should know that her 3 month contract runs out in December 2009. It say in papers and on websites. she will come back around the time Archie gets killed off because she as left her passport in the Queen Vic.--Sheep 2009 (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's in a newspaper then you can give a source for it. If she hasn't left, then she should be listed as current cast. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

sorry if i was nasty i dident mean that sorry.--Sheep 2009 (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

i have a source for sams christmas exit its. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/scoop/a180594/danniella-westbrook-on-ricky-bianca-and-her-exit.html. so if you can please add this to her departing ref please.--Sheep 2009 (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

She has left for good, her exit storyline was to influence the Mitchell's bankruptcy storyline, if she wouldn't have left they would have never got into debt, therefore being thrown out of the Vic. Alex250P (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

But there are so many arguments for her having not gone yet. The fact they announced a Christmas departure and that they extended a three-month contract when she departed less than three months after appearing. It makes more sense that she will return. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Has she gone NOW? Anyone seen her name in upcoming spoilers? The BBC website didn't even list her in credits for the last three episodes so that was no help. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

She doesn't seem to be on Digital Spy's spoilers anyway. It would seem likely that was her last appearance tonight. W93 (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think so. She wouldn't want to stick around now that the police are sniffing around the Mitchells, I think when she saw Ricky she knew she was never going to come back so that's why she was happy for him and Bianca. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

She gets sent down, so no, she hasnt gone.GunGagdin^Moan 16:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Need to revert some things now! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we safely say tonight was her last episode? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It was .... for now. 21:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What does that mean? She'll appear again soon, or she might come back when she's released from prison? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

She might come back when she's released, in 8 months for good behaviour. Carrying Rickaaaayyyys baby! GunGagdin^Moan 22:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

She might, but she doesn't want to be a Mitchell anymore so she probably won't. She's gone down, she's in prison. That's it, she's past. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you were wrong AP in writing her off as past cast. She was always going to be back later in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.187.106 (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't wrong, and I didn't write her off. She was past cast. The episode where she got sent down was her last episode of that contract. This is a totally separate contract. Are you saying we should never have listed her as past cast? AnemoneProjectors 16:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Image

Please could we use File:SamMitchellLastappearance.PNG as her page image? This is a screenshot from her last scene in her final appearance in 2010, the other was an outdated image from 2009. :) EastEnders1994 (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, because you uploaded it to Commons with a free licence. I'm now marking it for deletion. The image does not need to be up to date. It just needs to show the character from some point in the series. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

But it's best for it to be recent, at least in the year in which we saw the character leave at least.. EastEnders1994 (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

She was only around for a few months so a new image isn't necessary. The current image is recent enough. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Return 2010

when Sam returns this summer is she staying for good or only temp can someone tell me please.--Sheep 2009 (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

All we know is what has been reported by News of the World and Digital Spy. No mention of how long it's for. AnemoneProjectors 13:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok then thanks.--Sheep 2009 (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

DS says a handful of episodes.GunGagdin^Moan 20:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Middle name Brenda

It has come to light that Sam once said her middle name is Brenda. How should this be dealt with? It was a throwaway comment and when she got married her full name was Samantha Margaret Priscilla Mitchell. AnemoneProjectors 11:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What episode was Brenda mentioned in AP? And was Samantha Margaret Priscilla Mitchell used during both Sam weddings. Just trying to determine if Brenda may have been used in one of them. I am not sure how this should be dealt with. I'd say it's more of a continuity issue than anything that you should possibly ignore. Like when Lynne called Garry's mum in 2001 and called her Marion. As SMPM was used for the wedding(s) I'd stick with that.

It was an early episode, Sam and Ricky were looking at cars in the car lot and there was one with the names Brenda and Keith in the window and Sam said something like "let's get it, my middle name's Brenda" and Ricky said "but my middle name isn't Keith". The person who added Brenda put this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9M5gTyXgi8 link in their edit summary - the scene is somewhere near the end of the video. But I'm pretty sure she married as SMPM. The person who added Brenda wanted to call her SMPBM but that's wrong. (p.s. it may not have been the name Keith in the video) AnemoneProjectors 10:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What has this actually got to with anything??, that YouTube clip is about 21/22 years old, so I'm not sure 21/22 years later it really matters..... does it??? —Dweeby123 (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah you're absolutely right. Let's remove all information about things that happened in the show in the first five years. Sigh. Of course it matters. AnemoneProjectors 11:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need to be sarcastic, I was only saying —Dweeby123 (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry :) AnemoneProjectors 12:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Buddy friends?? :) —Dweeby123 (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sam Mitchell (EastEnders)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MayhemMario (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Disambiguations: I found and fixed one disambiguations.diff Though other than that none! Well Done!

Linkrot: I found one dead link, reference 43 to Digital Spy

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose) : b (MoS) :

   In 3rd paragraph it talks about Clive and then suddenly says that her marriage is over and to the reader sounds like she is married to Clive. Maybe, Realising that her marriage with Ricky is over. The 4th paragraph on Storylines overacts a lot of what Sam did like leaps at the chance (maybe something more suitable?) Also Ricky will not reconsider getting back with Sam and opts to try and make amends with Bianca and Sam is forced to admit defeat. (NB not a GA requirement) MayhemMario (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   A lot of references problems. Need to sort them out. I found link number 8,24,29,33,41 and 43 do not work. 8,24,29,33 have been redirected, 41 goes onto main page of News of the World and 43 does not work. Also 42 and 44 are the same reference. A lot more needed for 'Reception' as has got expand so obviously that will be needed to be done. This does bring the article down as if you have got one of them it is obviously there for a reason (to expand it)!MayhemMario (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Found another problem, the title for reference 30 is not what it says. Please check it MayhemMario (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Found a few more, 15 the title is not correct, 19, its not The People its the BBC. MayhemMario (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC) I'm going to also say that you could add to the 'Characterization section' as you could easily get a few more references for it. I can think of one i.e. Sam Mitchell's profile on the BBC? You've got it on the External Links! Also deleting dead links is incorrect. There there for proof that the statement you impling was there just not now. MayhemMario (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Digital Spy and me just putting in 'Sam Mitchell' I can easily come up with references which this article dosent have. This article has a lot of development on her reaction on returning, returning interviews,what she did when she returned etc. But it has no expansion on the storylines like rumours of what might happen when she returns. I may be totally wrong but my P.O. is that when you put this up for GA status you didnt do enough research. Like I said before there are many refs which I have found i.e.

• Sam Mitchell return 'to cause a stir this is about Her and Minty but in 2009-2010 it says nothing about this just, Jack was confirmed as her baby's father, Sam departed once again
• 'Enders Sam Mitchell to return pregnant? Agian it breifly touches on the subject but no major thing about it in the article.
• BBC Three to air 'EastEnders' Sam Mitchell special Is that even in there?
• Patsy: 'I'd love for Danniella to return' this also is another one not there....
• Sam Mitchell is back and another one....

To be perfectly honest I could go on for ever.... Though I'm not moaning as some articles i.e. this one do have a lot more infromation for them. MayhemMario (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough and well focussed

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   There was one here diff but was resolved by blocking the user. If there is not one in 7 days, you will pass this. MayhemMario (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This has not happened and thererfore you pass this. MayhemMario (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

1. 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):

   Maybe this is picky, on the characterization of Sam you could put a picture of Westbrook like with Vanessa Gold. MayhemMario (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

2. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just a few isues above to be addressed. On Hold for seven days. MayhemMario (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

   No changes have been made so just a few isues above to be addressed. On Hold for another seven days. On the understanding the Nomiantor is not familiar with the process. MayhemMario (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

   No changes have been made by any user associated with the article. On hold for one more day if not action has been taken, the article will fail. MayhemMario (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

   Sam Mitchell (EastEnders) was nominated as a Arts good article but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. MayhemMario (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Main image

There's a full body image of this available, can we not use that?GunGagdin^Moan 23:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

explanation

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (HW) removed several images from this article, asserting they did not comply with NFCC.

HW routinely removes images, with edit summaries asserting the images do not comply with NFCC, but then does not inform the image's uploader.

I reverted these excisions because, IMO, HW should be making a good faith attempt to explain why they think the images lapse from NFCC. They should not, IMO, be making these stealth excisions. HW's judgement over what does, or doesn't, comply with NFCC is often unsupported by closing administrators. But when they make stealth excisions, often no one else examines their justification, and the images end up being deleted seven days later, as unused.

This is definitely not how images should be deleted.

1. If the person who uploaded the image did so in good faith, they need to have the person who challenged the image explain how their non-free rationale fell short.
2. If the person who uploaded the image did not do so in good faith, further work is required so an administrator examines other non-free images they uploaded.
3. If HW's justification for excision is misplaced, they really need to make their challenge in a way that attracts the attention of other people, and then listen to their feedback, or else how are they going to wise up if they are making a series of bad excisions?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to see File:Sam Mitchell 1992.jpg restored to the article because it shows the character in the time she is best known - the 2016 image represents the character as she appeared in only a few episodes when she returned after a period of 6 years. Some editors have a habit of thinking we should represent the most recently broadcast episodes but I think it's more important to represent the majority of episodes, which is from the character's early years. Note that when this image was first uploaded, it was not used in the infobox, and imo it should never have been placed there. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 16:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this user's blanket removal of these pictures and have opposed his editing practise for as long as I can remember being on this site. Images of a character that has changed so markedly in appearance were being used to depict the way she has appeared throughout the entire duration and a rationale could be made for their inclusion based on this considering we are talking about appearances spanning nearly 30 years. In fact there was real world justification of that image that Anemone is referencing because it depicted the casting choice based on facial shape. The actor's appearance has altered substantially now. I think the early image should be undeleted. --GunGagdin^Moan 01:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Sam Mitchell Kim Medcalf.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Sam Mitchell is back for good not just this year iuts saying on your page that Sam is only back for this year she is not she is returning for good 92.5.51.97 (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

We're aware she's back permanently. However, per MOS:DATETOPRES, "2022–" is prohibited from Wikipedia and should only be changed to "2022–present" once we are in 2023. – DarkGlow • 19:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Thank you for messaging me back and explaining the situation regarding Sam Mitchell's return i totally understand what you said and thank you again kind regards Brendan 92.5.51.97 (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Storylines

I tagged the storyline section on this article a few days ago since it is waaaay too detailed and long. I understand that soap legacy characters will always have a rich history of stories, but Wikipedia is not the place for that. Since all of the crucial information is sourced further down within the development section, I'm proposing we remove the storyline section. Or at the very least, trim it. Majorly. – DarkGlow • 01:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this. Storyline pages on articles like Sharon Watts, Janine Butcher, Phil Mitchell and Ian Beale are extensively long, more-so than Sam's page, and there are some storylines that Sam has that will be forgotten now that the storylines section has gone. Readers aren't going to know about her other crucial storylines i.e. her breast cancer scare, romance with Ricky, Dennis, Den in 2003, her journey with the Mitchell empire in 2004 or with Chrissie in 2005 etc. The development page is just surface level of the character/actress history and doesn't give readers much about the character, whilst storyline gives them more depth of her journey. When I first started reading about EastEnders history around 2009/2010, storyline section was useful in helping me to understand character journeys. Articles like Nick Cotton suit the no storyline section because he was never a regular character with any significant contribution to the show and with Pauline, who despite being a major character for the show's first 21 years, she was more or less a supporting figure for the most part of her run. If storyline section is kept, it could be trimmed down, which I'd be willing to help any other user in doing so. As I've said before, Sharon, Janine, Phil, Ian and even Kat and a few others have way more longer and detailed storyline sections than Sam's so if that's the case, the same should happen with those pages. ChelseaFox'sBae2022 (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

2022 departure?

Has it been confirmed that Sam is definitely leaving? The link to the source is not working.87.114.2.209 (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Years in caption

Hey all, to stop the edit warring (which I am NOT involved in) I have started a new discussion at Template talk:Infobox soap character#Years in captions. Please do have a look there and contribute so we can come to an agreement! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)