Talk:Vincent Hubbard
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Marriage Year
[edit]There seems to be a lot of confusion as to the year this character got married (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) and the confusion is stemming from "the character not existing until 2015." As stated in the lead of this very article, "Despite not appearing until February 2015, the character received subtle off-screen mentions when his wife, Kim, mentioned her surname as being "Fox-Hubbard" on several occasions throughout her appearances the prior year." The fact that characters were talking about him and writers were writing dialogue mentioning him means that the character did exist prior to 2015, we just didn't physically see him (because no actor had been cast in the role). This is called an unseen character and is very common in all sorts of fiction. Unseen characters do exist, the fact that no actor was cast in the role isn't relevant to a character's existence.Cebr1979 (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Some unseen characters have even been pivotal to the work of fiction they are mentioned in (even without actors cast to play them) ie: Sycorax, The Man Who Worked in the Garden, Dulcinea del Toboso, Rosaline and, to lesser extents, Mary Ann from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, both Lily and Nobody from Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, Margaret from Peter and Wendy, and Carrie Barry from The Wizard of Oz. Gloriana never appears in The Faerie Queen yet, is the star, most important, and title character!Cebr1979 (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out all the times I've reverted this! :-) My opinion is that nothing exists or happens in soap that isn't seen on screen. Things don't "happen" off screen because off screen doesn't really exist in fiction, though it can be implied that it did. Though I understand what you're saying, as the unseen Vincent was said to have an influence, even though he wasn't seen (though really, it's the writers that have all the influence!). In terms of the fictional universe, I don't know if the correct year would be 2013 or 2014, but I hope it doesn't matter thanks to my discussion at Template talk:Infobox soap character#Durations for spouses. Regardless, I can see Vincent is a special case if he is to be considered an "unseen character" for a while, but would that therefore change his year of introduction category, and even his duration? –anemoneprojectors– 11:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- EastEnders has other unseen characters, but from what I can remember, they've all been seen eventually. Even Kirsty Branning, who wasn't mentioned before she arrived, "had influence" on Max's storylines (though I argue that it was the writers), and similarly to Vincent, "was married" before she appeared (though viewers didn't know she existed until she appeared). Though that could also apply to Pauline Fowler, Kathy Beale, Masood Ahmed, Tanya Branning, Les Coker, or any other character who arrived as a married person. This also brings up the question of when does a character start to exist - for Mick Carter, it could be many years before he was announced (2013), as he was conceived when Shirley Carter was conceived (2006?), and, as it was written, many of Shirley's actions were influenced by her backstory, which was known to writers when she was created but not to viewers until after Mick had been in the series for a while. –anemoneprojectors– 11:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, as I stated here, "Infoboxes are done in an in-universe style..." (though I should have specified that to simply refer to the collapsable family parameters). Of course, only when we see him would something like his duration be affected because that is the only time he has been on the show. When speaking in-universe, however, something like the date of his wedding would be included. It makes no sense to have his wife's marriage listed as 2014 but, his listed as 2015 simply because she had an actor and he didn't. When two people are married to each other (both real and fictional), they usually have the same wedding date, no? The writers of the show told us when both characters got married to each other, and they never said, "But only count it for her and not him because we don't have a male actor yet." The fact that we have Claudette Hubbard listed in the family section next to "Mother" proves that section is done in-universe. Vincent Hubbard is not real, he was never born, and therefore (in our real world) doesn't really have a mother. In the real world, the closest thing a fictional character has to parents are its creators (aka: the show's writers, specifically Dominic Treadwell-Collins).Cebr1979 (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- The infobox really is only supposed to include real-world information, but the most relevant and defining in-universe information has been allowed. Family is considered relevant, so is included (hence we only include those relatives that are relevant). However, durations aren't necessary for marriages because they simply don't matter and as all the episodes exist, characters that divorce are still married in those episodes - articles shouldn't pretend to be about real people and shouldn't claim that they married in a certain year, when we could just as easily watch fictional wedding five years after its original broadcast. Fictional characters do exist in the real world - as fictional characters. The fact that Claudette was created as Vincent's mother is still a real-world fact. I'm not sure what we're trying to conclude here, though. What was the question again? –anemoneprojectors– 13:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- "The fact that Claudette was created as Vincent's mother is still a real-world fact."
- The fact the character of Vincent Hubbard was already married before we saw what he looked like is also a real-world fact. Also, as I pointed out to you here, durations are necessary for marriages. You don't want them there, that's true, and have started a consensus talk to try and get rid of them but, you haven't accomplished that yet. Them "not mattering" is still just your personal opinion.Cebr1979 (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's part of his backstory. What conclusion are you hoping to reach? –anemoneprojectors– 13:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- We never saw him get born so his mother is part of his backstory too. I honestly don't get why you accept one part of fiction as only being related to in-universe and another part of fiction as only being related to real-world.Cebr1979 (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's part of his backstory. What conclusion are you hoping to reach? –anemoneprojectors– 13:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- The infobox really is only supposed to include real-world information, but the most relevant and defining in-universe information has been allowed. Family is considered relevant, so is included (hence we only include those relatives that are relevant). However, durations aren't necessary for marriages because they simply don't matter and as all the episodes exist, characters that divorce are still married in those episodes - articles shouldn't pretend to be about real people and shouldn't claim that they married in a certain year, when we could just as easily watch fictional wedding five years after its original broadcast. Fictional characters do exist in the real world - as fictional characters. The fact that Claudette was created as Vincent's mother is still a real-world fact. I'm not sure what we're trying to conclude here, though. What was the question again? –anemoneprojectors– 13:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, as I stated here, "Infoboxes are done in an in-universe style..." (though I should have specified that to simply refer to the collapsable family parameters). Of course, only when we see him would something like his duration be affected because that is the only time he has been on the show. When speaking in-universe, however, something like the date of his wedding would be included. It makes no sense to have his wife's marriage listed as 2014 but, his listed as 2015 simply because she had an actor and he didn't. When two people are married to each other (both real and fictional), they usually have the same wedding date, no? The writers of the show told us when both characters got married to each other, and they never said, "But only count it for her and not him because we don't have a male actor yet." The fact that we have Claudette Hubbard listed in the family section next to "Mother" proves that section is done in-universe. Vincent Hubbard is not real, he was never born, and therefore (in our real world) doesn't really have a mother. In the real world, the closest thing a fictional character has to parents are its creators (aka: the show's writers, specifically Dominic Treadwell-Collins).Cebr1979 (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- EastEnders has other unseen characters, but from what I can remember, they've all been seen eventually. Even Kirsty Branning, who wasn't mentioned before she arrived, "had influence" on Max's storylines (though I argue that it was the writers), and similarly to Vincent, "was married" before she appeared (though viewers didn't know she existed until she appeared). Though that could also apply to Pauline Fowler, Kathy Beale, Masood Ahmed, Tanya Branning, Les Coker, or any other character who arrived as a married person. This also brings up the question of when does a character start to exist - for Mick Carter, it could be many years before he was announced (2013), as he was conceived when Shirley Carter was conceived (2006?), and, as it was written, many of Shirley's actions were influenced by her backstory, which was known to writers when she was created but not to viewers until after Mick had been in the series for a while. –anemoneprojectors– 11:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out all the times I've reverted this! :-) My opinion is that nothing exists or happens in soap that isn't seen on screen. Things don't "happen" off screen because off screen doesn't really exist in fiction, though it can be implied that it did. Though I understand what you're saying, as the unseen Vincent was said to have an influence, even though he wasn't seen (though really, it's the writers that have all the influence!). In terms of the fictional universe, I don't know if the correct year would be 2013 or 2014, but I hope it doesn't matter thanks to my discussion at Template talk:Infobox soap character#Durations for spouses. Regardless, I can see Vincent is a special case if he is to be considered an "unseen character" for a while, but would that therefore change his year of introduction category, and even his duration? –anemoneprojectors– 11:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
IMO, the marriage happened while the soap existed, was mentioned in the soap, the character 'existed' in terms of the storyline at that point, and is therefore "real-world" in that sense. Had it been prior to the soap existing, or the character hadn't existed in the storyline until 2015, its more arguable that 2015 would be incorrect, but as it is I think 2014 is fine. Stephenb (Talk) 13:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'll let this one go then. But I still don't think years are necessary for any character :-) I just realised I already started a discussion on this before but it died. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas#In-universe dates in infoboxes. –anemoneprojectors– 13:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
User:AnemoneProjectors: I have now read all of the pages you have linked to from top to bottom and there is not one thing anywhere that states "Durations for spouses" are not needed in the infobox when a character has been married their entire duration. Not one. Anywhere. There is, however, this that states "Durations are listed." I've put that information back now and I do hope you stop being such a disruption with your phoney baloney rules, goose-chase policies and phantom consensus talks.Cebr1979 (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Actually your latest argument is about the fact I removed "Cynthia" from the infobox on this page. Consensus isn't only built on discussion and you know that. I've asked that "durations are listed" be made optional. That's all I wanted. AnemoneProjectors 10:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ya, okay, sure. You've never gotten what you wanted, though, so I don't understand why you've been reverting myself and others for almost a whole year. Oh, well. Since we've agreed to leave it there, let's part ways. Hopefully it doesn't disappear again in the future. Ta-ta!Cebr1979 (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- If there is consensus to do so, it will. Be it by discussion on this page, WikiProject EastEnders, WikiProject Soaps, WikiProject Fictional Characters, the character infobox, the "writing about fiction" guideline, or some other place. I'm sure we will have other encouters and I hope they are more civil. AnemoneProjectors 12:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- We've been civil. Should/When we encounter each other again, I just hope you're more truthful. Things move a lot faster that way. More productively too! :-) Cebr1979 (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- If there is consensus to do so, it will. Be it by discussion on this page, WikiProject EastEnders, WikiProject Soaps, WikiProject Fictional Characters, the character infobox, the "writing about fiction" guideline, or some other place. I'm sure we will have other encouters and I hope they are more civil. AnemoneProjectors 12:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ya, okay, sure. You've never gotten what you wanted, though, so I don't understand why you've been reverting myself and others for almost a whole year. Oh, well. Since we've agreed to leave it there, let's part ways. Hopefully it doesn't disappear again in the future. Ta-ta!Cebr1979 (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Sources that can be added to the article
[edit]AnemoneProjectors 17:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
This article is not a BLP
[edit]Please don't be daft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.254.146 (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Please read the notice properly, thanks. — anemoneprojectors 08:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Vincent Hubbard
[edit]I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Vincent Hubbard's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Departure":
- From Lola Pearce: Fletcher, Harry (13 June 2015). "EastEnders' Danielle Harold is leaving Lola Pearce role". Digital Spy. Retrieved 13 June 2015.
- From Dean Wicks: Green, Kris. "'Kevin Wicks' quits 'EastEnders'". Digital Spy. Hachette Filipacchi UK. Retrieved 18 August 2008.
- From Laura Beale: Methven, Nicola. "Freakender". Daily Mirror. Trinity Mirror. Retrieved 13 January 2012.
- From Alice Branning: Daniels, Colin (22 September 2013). "'EastEnders' Alice Branning actress Jasmyn Banks to leave". Digital Spy. Hearst Magazines UK. Retrieved 25 September 2013.
- From Afia Masood: Kilkelly, Daniel (23 May 2012). "'EastEnders': Afia Masood to leave Walford". Digital Spy. Hearst Magazines UK. Retrieved 23 May 2012.
- From Ruby Allen: Saney, Daniel (8 July 2006). "'Enders' Louisa Lytton leaves the Square". Digital Spy. Hachette Filipacchi UK. Retrieved 9 April 2012.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- It was none of those, it was a reference named "Blackwood" that should have been named "Departure", so I fixed it. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 15:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)