Jump to content

Talk:Stacey Slater

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible sources

[edit]
  • "EastEnders' Lacey Turner's tyre trauma". My Park Mag. 2007-12-04. Retrieved 2007-12-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (Lacey Turner couldn't fit into Stacey's wedding dress.) anemone│projectors 15:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some really good stuff there! anemone│projectors 14:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another: Stacey's worst Christmas anemone│projectors 23:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lacey: I'll watch 'Enders at Xmas! anemone│projectors 12:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of these been used? Here's another to do with the upcoming Becca storyline[1] AnemoneProjectors 01:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

[edit]

Talk:Stacey Branning/Sandbox Gungadin 20:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drug?

[edit]

that Deano gave Stacey, was it Rohypnol? or didnt we ever find out? Gungadin 23:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but that reminds me of a greatterrible chat up line... anemone│projectors 23:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

I recently moved this page to Stacey Branning as the EastEnders website still refers to her as that, even in their news article about asking questions to Tiana Benjamin. However Alex250P has said she's divorced from Bradley (not that that would make a difference to her name) and using the Slater name again. I still think her legal name is Branning so that's what we should use. What do others think? anemone│projectors 12:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since they split up again in September 2008 she refers to herself as Stacey Slater not Branning, even if they were still married then she could easily change her name back to Slater, the main fact is it's like Max and Tanya, there divorced but she still calls herself Tanya Branning but Stacey calls herself Stacey Slater. Alex250P (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think that in all cases we should follow WP:COMMONNAME and use the most easily recognised name. I think in this case, that would be Stacey Slater. Google searches for "Stacey Slater" and "Stacey Branning" return over 50,000 hits for the former, and less than 7000 for the latter, while Google News archives have 323 pages referencing Stacey Slater and only 30 mentioning Stacey Branning. Basically, on the whole I think that in-universe details such legal names and married names etc are less relevant than what the character is better known as in the real word - so for instance, we have an article on Minty Peterson and not Rick Peterson, regardless of what it might say on his fictional birth certificate. Frickative 00:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add - that's something I'd advocate keeping the same, even if the character suddenly started calling himself Rick, and the BBC were using that name on the EastEnders website... at least until such time the character became predominately known as Rick rather than Minty to the general public. I hope that makes sense? Frickative 00:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree that the page should be located at Stacey Slater as that's the common name, but I still think the lead should read "Stacey Branning (nee Slater)". Agree or no? anemone│projectors 10:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, yes, in that instance I definitely agree :) Frickative 16:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But she calls herself Slater not Branning? If she still called herself Stacey Branning then yes so shouldn't we put it as Stacey Slater (previously Branning) ? Alex250P (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Frickative on this. I dont like the way we constantly change the page names when they get married because the marriages barely ever last. And when you get characters like Dot still being referred to as Cotton in the media, it kind of backs this up, although I suppose with redirects it doesnt particularly matter.GunGagdinMoan 20:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only current characters I can think of that could get moved are Dot and Pat, but I think we should leave everything as it is at the moment, as we have redirects... maybe when the next person gets married we just create a redirect instead of a page move. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 22:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, let's get one thing striaght!!

[edit]

Is she or is she not Stacey Slater not Branning. She refers to herself as Slater therefore she is one now. Next thing you you know we'll have Stacey Slater-Branning Anyone else agree? --Spock a (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we already got it straight? She's called Stacey Branning now and will be until she remarries or changes it by deed poll. She called herself Slater once, I think, possibly while flirting. The article should remain at Stacey Slater but the lead should say Branning (nee Slater). AnemoneProjectors (what?) 15:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up because some people use her name interchangeably. --Spock a (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. Have a look at the "name" section above for more info. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 19:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce

[edit]

Are Stacey and Bradley not divorced, or at least divorcing? We've seen her sign the papers, surely we can now change her marital status? AJ21SW (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She signed the papers but we haven't seen or had confirmation that the actual divorce has been finalised, so we need to wait until it we have. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the divorce between Bradley and Stacey happened a few weeks ago now. It was mentioned to Stacey in tonights episode. Would anyone object if I changed the name on the article back to read Stacey Slater (nee Branning)? --5 albert square (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Scrap that, someone has just changed it back to Slater --5 albert square (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would object to it being changed to Slater (previously Branning), because she has not changed her last name from Branning to Slater. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I thought we were just holding off until Stacey was told of the divorce, but I wasn't 100% sure so thought I would ask instead of just assume things. Have reverted the edits to show the surname as Branning again --5 albert square (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just to clarify, bbc.co.uk apparently credits her as Stacey Slater, however, in the EastEnders universe she is still Stacey Branning. Therefore the lead should read "Branning (née Slater)". The page should stay located at Stacey Slater despite this because of WP:COMMONNAME: it is the name she is best known by to viewers. I'm unsure about the infobox, but I think it should say Branning. I think that's for us to decide really. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no its not for us to decide just give it a few days im sure her name will be mentioned on-screen by Jean or Al dat will clear things up brian moore (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, we can wait and see. Obviously we've seen in the past that she has called herself Stacey Slater even when she should have still been legally Branning, and that was before she was even divorced. This subject has been discussed to death in the two sections above, but this is the first time since she actually got divorced. If she is mentioned by another character as being officially called Stacey Slater then EastEnders writers are very bad at dealing with characters' names after divorce. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And when I said it's for us to decide, I was only referring to the infobox with regard to using the page name, i.e. her WP:COMMONNAME, or her actual character name to match the lead. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, hopefully it will be mentioned within the next week or so. I was thinking it would need to be mentioned for when she's booked into hospital, because wasn't that where the police were taking her in tonights episode? Hopefully soon anyway! --5 albert square (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, a woman does not automatically revert to her maiden name following a divorce, fact. If Stacey is shown to be legally named Slater in the EastEnders universe then I'd love to know where she found the time and inclination to change it, since she was suffering a mental breakdown and was sectioned moments after finding out she was divorced. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well she's definitely listed on the BBC's website as Stacey Slater :) --5 albert square (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My two pennies: If we're the only ones referring to her as Branning then perhaps we should just go with Slater, even though it's not been plausible that she's officially changed her name from Branning. Realistic legalities dont always apply to fiction, but saying that, I dont care either way :) GunGagdinMoan 23:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well changing it to Slater, when we don't even know if that is her surname, is not exactly encyclopedic. Branning is the surname she was last known with, and until we hear otherwise, it should remain so. W93 (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slater is what she has been referred to numerous times since she was known as Branning (even by Stacey herself), that's why the whole argument arose in the first place. GunGagdinMoan 23:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I'm just fed up of this coming up every time there's a divorce. Where have people got the idea that women change their name following divorce? Surely they must know a divorced woman in the real world. Totally agreeing with W93 here by the way. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from, and I agree that it shouldnt automatically revert in most cases, but if in reality a divorced woman referred to herself by her maiden name, would you refuse to call her that because you havent seen official proof that she had changed her name? I tend to think we should go with the name characters call themselves, because technicalities are often overlooked in fiction. By the accounts above she calls herself Slater. But I always find naming discussions such a waste of time, so i'm swiftly moving on :)GunGagdinMoan 23:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She is referred to as Stacey Slater in the article name, however this is a character profile and this is the reason why it says Stacey Branning in the opening, because that's her name. We'll just have to wait and see if it is mentioned in the show. W93 (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's just wait and see. If the writers decide that the character wants to be known as Stacey Slater then I'll go along with that. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I thought I would bring up this old discussion again going on what I heard on EE tonight. When at her scan, Stacey was referred to as "Miss Slater". Should we take it then that she has decided to revert back to her maiden name and change her page? --5 albert square (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish you hadn't. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry --5 albert square (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did say "If the writers decide that the character wants to be known as Stacey Slater then I'll go along with that" so I guess the writers have decided. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I just didn't want to go back to Slater and have everyone revert it! I'll change her now :) --5 albert square (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Market Stall Holder

[edit]

I'm just wondering if we should remove her from the category of fictional market stall holders. I don't think she owns her 'patch' anymore, I think she's given it up to Ryan hasn't she? --5 albert square (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She lost her pitch to Ryan but she was a market stall holder so the category should remain. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who created Stacey?

[edit]

Was it Louise Berridge or Tony Jordan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junipers Liege (talk • contribs)

Louise Berridge. Tony Jordan and John Yorke created the 'original' Slater family back in 2000 so created characters such as Charlie Slater but Stacey didn't join until 2004 which was the Berridge era --5 albert square (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes.... but did Berridge create Stacey or just introduce her; there is quite a bit of overlap between introducer/creator in these articles sometimes. Tony Jordan created the Ferreria's, which also occured under Berridge's reign. I suppose we rightly assume that the EP creates - or contributes to the creation - of those characters they introduce; as Tony Jordan, according to their wiki pages, helped create the first Slaters (even though he was not EP obviously), I was wondering whether he created or helped create Stacey as well. Perhaps, to avoid confusion , we should alter the way the creator/introdcer fields work on the infoboxes. If there is an assumpation (and a correct one imo) that the EP in charge at the time is also a creator of the character, perhaps we should just have the introducer field list the EP (and any other figures attached to the creation of the character, for instance: Jordan, Holland, etc.) and then just have the introducer field list the year/s the character was introduced/returned. So, to take Stacey as an example, it would look like:
Created by: Louise Berridge
Introduced: 2004
Or, for Kat:
Created by: Tony Jordan, John Yorke
Introduced: 2000, 2010
Presently, there is some discrepency in these fields. So, again Louise Berridge is created with "creating" Stacey, whilst John Yorke is simply credited with "introducing" Kat. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 06:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A field for years introduced is duplication of duration. The introducer field was added because we can't assume that the EP creates (or even helps create) the character. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. So, as it stands we don't know for sure who created Stacey? ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 13:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kat was also reintroduced in 2005 by Kate Harwood.

What has this to do with who created Stacey? AnemoneProjectors 22:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because in the introduction example for Kat only had 2000 and 2010 as her introduction years. But she was also reintroduced in 2005. Just correcting the person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.3.102 (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duration Confusion? ...

[edit]

Why is it that it says that Jean (Stacey's Mom) and Stacey are both set to leave at the same time in late 2010 yet it says that Jean's Duration is 2004, 2005, 2006—10 and Stacey's 2004—11. I don't get it... If they are supposed to leave at the same time then how can the durations be different? Mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.3.102 (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article wasn't updated properly. At first it was reported they would both leave in 2010 but it's sice been reported that Stacey will leave in 2011. Nothing about Jean leaving in 2011 has been reported so we're leaving it as 2010 until we hear otherwise, because that's how it was originally reported. AnemoneProjectors 22:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well for the time being shouldn't it be updated to stop saying that they are both leaving together? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.3.102 (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey's duration is very strange. She appears to have two leaving years now of 2010 and 2011. Unless it's implying (and is sourced) that she leaves later this year before returning and leaving again in 2011? If so I have overlooked the verified reference to this. Where was it reported that she would be leaving in 2011? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.224.30 (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it says 10/11 is because we have a source that says she'll leave in 2011 and a source that says she'll leave at Christmas. However, Christmas can mean anything from Christmas Eve to New Year's Day. So basically, it's either 2010 or 2011 but we're not entirely sure which it is right now. Maybe it should be written differently. AnemoneProjectors 18:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She is leaving on Christmas Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.224.30 (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That might not change it. That would mean there's still some sources saying 2010 and some saying 2011. --5 albert square (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where 2011 was plucked from 5ASQ I presume that year has been floating around for several weeks now? As the press were recently told that Stacey's exit is this year's xmas day storyline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.224.30 (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011 came from this source, which says "Stacey Slater was unveiled as the killer. Lacey Turner, who plays her, will leave the programme in 2011." It isn't known on what day Stacey will leave, and in fact, all that is known is that it'll be during the Christmas period. News reporters have probably assumed it means Christmas Day. Most reliably, Bryan Kirkwood said "Christmas will be all about her [Stacey]" - but Christmas doesn't mean Christmas Day, it means the Christmas period (Christmas Eve to New Years's Day). AnemoneProjectors 02:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well I'm not sure if it's any use but she's definitely leaving on xmas day and this was recently confirmed to journalists by the BBC Press Office. I know because I got the email myself. The main gist of it was about the press contacting the press office should they be approached with any location images of Stacey's exit but also confirming that she's leaving on christmas day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.224.30 (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an online source for this or is it all from an email from the press office, meaning you're probably breaking their embargo by telling us this information? AnemoneProjectors 02:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well no obviously there's no online source for this but I'm not breaking any embargo either by telling you her exit is christmas day. If that was embargoed I would never have posted it here. You already know from sources and it has been reported that Stacey's exit will be over christmas (more sources than I believe give the 2011 date anyway) it's up to you whether you assume good faith and adjust the duration date or not but I have been right on here in the past. Plus it is the norm for major characters to leave EE on Christmas Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.224.30 (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't change anything without citing a reliable source so that it is verifiable. AnemoneProjectors 02:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Although it's not like you've never assumed good faith before but then different standards appear to apply in different cases depending on the mood it would seem. But quite clearly the date is currently unverifiable anyway since it's down as 10/11 implying she will be leaving and coming back again before leaving again next year. No source suggests this. All there is suggesting 2011 is an unreliable article posted by Digital Spy several months ago and an article that was not even authored by the regular Digital Spy Soap Editor at that. I suggest it is reverted to 2010 on the basis that more sources (and more reliable ones) give this date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.224.30 (talk)

It doesn't imply she's leaving or coming back. It's signifying that she will leave in with 2010 or 2011. We could leave it open but that would imply she's not leaving. We could pick one but we don't know which one it is so we run the risk of being wrong. Both 2010 and 2011 are verifiable because we have reliable sources for them both. AnemoneProjectors 03:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you can't just add information willy nilly without a source and I'm not suggesting that you do but I consider myself (as a journo) a reliable source and would back this up by saying that I have been right before and what is ironic is that you have assumed good faith with me in the past. It's okay anyway as I only brought this up to be helpful. It is not my desire to be disruptive hence why I don't make edits first and ask questions later like some do, instead I raise any issues I have on the talk pages. Let's leave it there ... and we'll see who was right. ;) :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.224.30 (talk)

By the way I'm pretty sure the 2011 date came from the Edinburgh International TV Festival, and I'm sure the source did actually say that at the time. But now it doesn't. AnemoneProjectors 03:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and this isn't a competition to see who is right and who is wrong. So don't try and make it into one please. AnemoneProjectors 03:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That comment about seeing who is right was a joke hence it coming after the three dots and being seperate from 'Let's leave it there', I'm not petty enough to try to turn this into a who knows the most competition. Although it does seem you get pissed off sometimes at the mere suggestion that someone knows something you don't and tries to put it on here. It's not inconceivable that people who work in the media should edit Wikipedia. And people who work in the media mostly are reliable otherwise you wouldn't use the stuff they write as sources which is the irony. All I pointed out was that DS article was published way back in August and since then updated info has become available to the press confirming that Stacey's exit will be on xmas day. And I'm not breaking any embargo in saying that as it's not a spoiler on how she will be going. (I don't actually know yet myself how she goes). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.224.30 (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Published sources from people in the media are reliable, not random anonymous people claiming to work in the media and claiming to have received an email. Yes more sources have come out since but none of them say Stacey leaves on Christmas Day, just that she leaves at Christmas. And that's what we say here. AnemoneProjectors 03:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not what we're saying here. We're saying she leaves in two seperate years to be exact. Yes it can be interpreted as either 2010 or 2011 but that's confusing. And if you're so obsessed with verifiable sources why not just leave it blank/continuing until you know for sure as clearly there's already some confusion for two years to be there now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.224.30 (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because we know she's leaving. We used the slash to mean "or", not "and". I'm willing to change it to something else, but I would appreciate suggestions because I don't know what else to do. AnemoneProjectors 03:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be left as 2004- continuing for now then as it's misleading as it currently stands and clearly any info I try to provide/help with isn't suitable. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.224.30 (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have another suggestion, because leaving it open is more misleading. It's not at all misleading to say she's leaving in either 2010 or 2011. AnemoneProjectors 03:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think a clear distinction that it means 2010 OR 2011 should be made eg. 2010 or 2011. Rather than the current slash but let's see what others think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.224.30 (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave it as 2010/11. Its fine in my opinion --GSorbyDesroid - (Contribs!) 13:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Marshall (on This Morning) has just confirmed that Stacey leaves on Christmas Day. AnemoneProjectors 11:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good article

[edit]

I think this would make an ideal candidate for GA, but aside from reception, is there anything else missing? AnemoneProjectors 17:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stacey_Slater&oldid=1253415314"