Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Image rape of minor characters
I see some ***** has removed all the images from the minor character lists. I'm really pissed off, I spent ages taking those captures for this place :(
Assuming that we have no chance of overturning this stupid rule, then I can only see three options.
- a) recreate the minor character redirects with character bios
- b) recreate the articles in an outside EE wiki, and provide Interwiki linking where necessary
- c) just leave minor characters image-less
What does everyone want to do? Gungadin♦ 00:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I contacted the person who removed the images to ask if they would comment here to let us know how many images can be used so we could decide which ones we wanted. I don't think recreating the redirects is a good idea. Using the EastEnders Wikia that exists is still a good idea but I don't think I can be bothered to use more than one Wiki so I'd only be there every now and then. We must be allowed to use some images. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 14:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- He appears to not be allowing any images in minor character lists, episodes lists or album lists. I read thier pretentious FAQ.
- If we went ahead with a move to wikia, then hopefully it wouldnt take too much management. It will be a dumping ground at first, but interest may increase once it gets going. Maybe we can just make it a minor character wiki :)
- Possibly some of the characters in the lists can be given their own page, like bruno di marco etc, we should go through and make a list which may be suitable. Babies like freddie Mitchell can be redirected to mother/father articles. We can give them their own section at the end perhaps? like I did here [1] Gungadin♦ 17:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- We don't need to redirect babies to their parents because we're not getting rid of the minor characters lists. Does Wikia allow copyrighted material? Personally the only solution I can see that isn't going to cause further problems is just to not have the images. I won't know who is who anymore, but never mind. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I know we're not getting rid of the lists, I just meant that redirecting babies to their own section within parent articles would allow inclusion of their images (fairuse images are allowed so long as they're not in lists). Also, a redirect to a section in a character article is the same as a redirect to a section in a list, we'd only be altering the page it redirects to. I wouldnt mind this, cos it could be done for minor parents/grandparents/siblings etc. For instance we could merge Queenie Trott onto Heather, and Rainie onto Tanya Branning.
- Wikia allows copyrighted images under fairuse, see wookipedia [2]. Obviously the bonus is that a subject doesnt have to be notable to be included, so all the minors can have their own image, and it would just be a cut and paste job from here to there. I was reading the discussion page on the notability guideline the other day, and it seems that most of our minor characters are not even notable enough to be included on a minor lists, lol. No doubt some jobsworth will be along to delete these too. I'm tired of this bullshit here, and I'm thinking that if I'm no longer enjoying it here, then it's prbably a good idea to just stop editing, or just find another wikiproject where some anus wont come along and cull all my contributions :) Gungadin♦ 01:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I see you've started on merging some minors with their more notable relatives, etc. I personally don't think it looks right but I won't stop you doing it, as it's a solution to the image problem. I'm sure it'll grow on me. But please don't find another wiki because with Trampikey not about much, I can't handle this WikiProject all on my own!!!! By the way, if any image gets deleted before you need to use it, I can undelete it if you let me know. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 20:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- It was just a test, I wanted to see if I liked it, but I dont think i do. Shall I revert it? That's handy that you can see deleted images. Im pleased, as it means I dont have to rush into creating articles. im intending to write some OOU stuff for some in the lists if I can, although they might be a bit shit like Josh Saunders (EastEnders) - i was scraping the barrell a bit there :) Dont worry im not leaving, im just starting to think that editing fiction is becoming too much hassle. By the way, ive discovered that 5 images per article does not register on the fairuse-overuse lists, hence why "spin-offs" wasnt attacked. Maybe we can keep it to 5 per page.Gungadin♦ 23:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh right. Well, it's up to you if you want to revert what you did. As long as you know the names of your images, I can see them after they're deleted, and restore them. Hmm I think the person who removed the images probably found one or a few of the pages and then went through them all, forgetting about the spin-offs... but we could try going for five images per page and seeing what happens. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh and Josh's page is good ;) Is it new? It wasn't even on my watchlist. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeh, i made it today, and I also created Julie Haye, she was previously in the minor list. I think i'll leave Kofi for 2nite, and i'll try and come up with a small OOU section and sources for his own page tomorrow. I too sleepy to do the change around now :) Gungadin♦ 23:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh and Josh's page is good ;) Is it new? It wasn't even on my watchlist. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh right. Well, it's up to you if you want to revert what you did. As long as you know the names of your images, I can see them after they're deleted, and restore them. Hmm I think the person who removed the images probably found one or a few of the pages and then went through them all, forgetting about the spin-offs... but we could try going for five images per page and seeing what happens. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- It was just a test, I wanted to see if I liked it, but I dont think i do. Shall I revert it? That's handy that you can see deleted images. Im pleased, as it means I dont have to rush into creating articles. im intending to write some OOU stuff for some in the lists if I can, although they might be a bit shit like Josh Saunders (EastEnders) - i was scraping the barrell a bit there :) Dont worry im not leaving, im just starting to think that editing fiction is becoming too much hassle. By the way, ive discovered that 5 images per article does not register on the fairuse-overuse lists, hence why "spin-offs" wasnt attacked. Maybe we can keep it to 5 per page.Gungadin♦ 23:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I see you've started on merging some minors with their more notable relatives, etc. I personally don't think it looks right but I won't stop you doing it, as it's a solution to the image problem. I'm sure it'll grow on me. But please don't find another wiki because with Trampikey not about much, I can't handle this WikiProject all on my own!!!! By the way, if any image gets deleted before you need to use it, I can undelete it if you let me know. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 20:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Can't we just rename them so they're not lists anymore? We can't win: we're not allowed individual articles, but now we've merged them we have to lose the images. Wikinazism! I'm on holiday at the moment, but please try and find a way to keep the lists with images! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Another idea is to split the lists to 5 a page, so we can include iamges... I don't like includign kids on their parents' articles, as they're their own characters. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I feel kind of like Gungadin - I can't be arsed with this anymore if sme c**t's gonna come and delete my contributions. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's annoying, but I hope you dont let them push you away from editing, that way they have won. It has happened to every list of characters on here from what ive seen. When I was doing all the redirects for the minor list swap, I noticed that they were all listed at User:Durnin's "Fairuse overuse" list, so I had been expecting this, but not a complete cull without warning. There is even a group of editors here that refer to themselves as "Durin's Fair Use Army". Ive noticed that EE pages other than minor lists are on the fairuse overuse page too, so im expecting a cull on images accross all our pages soon. What are your thoughts about swapping the minors to an EE wiki, Trampikey? I dont think we can have a page for every 5 minors. Think how many we'd need just for the 2006 and 2007 lists.Gungadin♦ 17:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Can I say something extremely controversial? — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's annoying, but I hope you dont let them push you away from editing, that way they have won. It has happened to every list of characters on here from what ive seen. When I was doing all the redirects for the minor list swap, I noticed that they were all listed at User:Durnin's "Fairuse overuse" list, so I had been expecting this, but not a complete cull without warning. There is even a group of editors here that refer to themselves as "Durin's Fair Use Army". Ive noticed that EE pages other than minor lists are on the fairuse overuse page too, so im expecting a cull on images accross all our pages soon. What are your thoughts about swapping the minors to an EE wiki, Trampikey? I dont think we can have a page for every 5 minors. Think how many we'd need just for the 2006 and 2007 lists.Gungadin♦ 17:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I feel kind of like Gungadin - I can't be arsed with this anymore if sme c**t's gonna come and delete my contributions. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
of course.Gungadin♦ 20:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nah, I don't want to say it now. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 20:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- You cant tease me like that, I was excited for some controversy. Go on, say it, I promise I wont care whatever it is:) Having differing opinions helps to make decisions. Gungadin♦ 20:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hehe, well I was going to say the pages look ok without the images. But I decided against saying that because I'd still like the images to be there. But I was going to suggest, where there's no image and very little text, removing the infobox and just having the dates, actor, etc in the text, or as bullet points. That would remove whitespace and it might look neater. Or more boring. I haven't decided yet. And I can't believe Trampikey accused someone of Nazism!— AnemoneProjectors (会話) 21:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I have thought this before, but ive never suggested it because I liked having the images, but now we cant have them so I wouldnt oppose this. When I was making the "others" table in the minor lists, I was thinking that it would be much more convenient to just include the less important characters there, and not bother giving them redirects iboxes etc. Some characters on the lists are less minor than others. There's a big difference between characters like Helen Pappas/Adam Childe and Ros Thorne/Gina Williams for example. Perhaps we should move all the sundry characters (one off appearances, lawyers, baliffs etc) to the tables. If we establish the less minor characters on the lists, then I will try to make a sourced OOU section for them like I did with Julie Haye.Gungadin♦ 21:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- That would be a good idea because then we might be able to have five images on some of the pages ;) — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I have thought this before, but ive never suggested it because I liked having the images, but now we cant have them so I wouldnt oppose this. When I was making the "others" table in the minor lists, I was thinking that it would be much more convenient to just include the less important characters there, and not bother giving them redirects iboxes etc. Some characters on the lists are less minor than others. There's a big difference between characters like Helen Pappas/Adam Childe and Ros Thorne/Gina Williams for example. Perhaps we should move all the sundry characters (one off appearances, lawyers, baliffs etc) to the tables. If we establish the less minor characters on the lists, then I will try to make a sourced OOU section for them like I did with Julie Haye.Gungadin♦ 21:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hehe, well I was going to say the pages look ok without the images. But I decided against saying that because I'd still like the images to be there. But I was going to suggest, where there's no image and very little text, removing the infobox and just having the dates, actor, etc in the text, or as bullet points. That would remove whitespace and it might look neater. Or more boring. I haven't decided yet. And I can't believe Trampikey accused someone of Nazism!— AnemoneProjectors (会話) 21:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- You cant tease me like that, I was excited for some controversy. Go on, say it, I promise I wont care whatever it is:) Having differing opinions helps to make decisions. Gungadin♦ 20:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer to have the images - that's what the image field in the infobox is for! Another idea is to do it alphabetically then split it to 5 per page (Aa-Ac etc.) but then we'd end up with a load of pages. Or we could try and get the policy changed... 81.145.240.36 12:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- ^That's me, Trampikey, but I can't be arsed to sign in... 81.145.240.36 12:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- We can split into pages of 5 if you like, but we cant be certain that it will make a difference. They may just be deleted again anyway.
- We can try and get this decision changed, but I wouldnt know where to start, and you arent around enough to back me up. I dont fancy taking them on by myself. It seems to me that the followers of this are just putting their own spin on the rule WP:NFCC#8, which says: "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." These people have given their own interpretation of what WP:NFCC#8 means, and they've done it to fit in with their personal opinion: "If a character is not significant enough to have their own article, their status within the universe of the depicted series is minor, and it becomes exceptionally hard to justify violating our core m:Mission" ... That is subjective and not necessarily correct, because others clearly feel that images do significantly increase a readers' understanding of the topic.
- The user who deleted the images has this conversation on his talk page User talk:Rettetast#Ben 10, which makes me think that there is not set rules in place anyway. Going by that conversation, we can give images to the more important characters on the page. Maybe we should just choose which ones are more important, reinclude their images and see what happens. I still think that the sundry characters should just be put into a table.
- Another option we have is to include minors with pages on storylines. For instance Harry Reynolds, Tessa and Eddie can be merged into the Banned. We could make a dickens hill page, merging all the prisoners etc. Would any one mind that?Gungadin♦ 18:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea about The Banned and Dickens Hill. But I disagree that we should split the pages so there's 5 on each page. That's just far too many. I'd rather have a page of 20 characters with 5 images than loads of tiny pages. anemone
|projectors 19:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea about The Banned and Dickens Hill. But I disagree that we should split the pages so there's 5 on each page. That's just far too many. I'd rather have a page of 20 characters with 5 images than loads of tiny pages. anemone
I did it, it's not finished yet, but what do you think? The Banned (EastEnders) Gungadin♦ 23:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah that's good! And it took ages to figure out my sig! Thanks :) anemone
|projectors 08:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)- I added 5 or less images on each page, so lets see what happens. Where there was more than 5 images to choose from, I opted to go for images of the more prominent characters. Because of number limits and the way the pages are split, some characters with bigger roles wont get images on one page, but very minor ones will get them on another. If people arent happy with this, then maybe we can come up with a different way to list them.Gungadin♦ 18:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good job. I'm fine with the results. I noticed a prisoner's wife with a picture though, won't she go in the new article too or are you just keeping it for the prisoners? anemone
|projectors 21:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)- I havent decided what to do with her yet. I will prob put her in the dickens hill article, but I was worried about having more than five images in the article in case the fair use army notices. But I suppose she doesnt really need to have an image anyway, she wasnt very important.Gungadin♦ 15:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's not really going to be a list of minor characters so you might get away with it. anemone
|projectors 15:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's not really going to be a list of minor characters so you might get away with it. anemone
- I havent decided what to do with her yet. I will prob put her in the dickens hill article, but I was worried about having more than five images in the article in case the fair use army notices. But I suppose she doesnt really need to have an image anyway, she wasnt very important.Gungadin♦ 15:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good job. I'm fine with the results. I noticed a prisoner's wife with a picture though, won't she go in the new article too or are you just keeping it for the prisoners? anemone
- I added 5 or less images on each page, so lets see what happens. Where there was more than 5 images to choose from, I opted to go for images of the more prominent characters. Because of number limits and the way the pages are split, some characters with bigger roles wont get images on one page, but very minor ones will get them on another. If people arent happy with this, then maybe we can come up with a different way to list them.Gungadin♦ 18:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I like the Banned article, so I'm sure I'll like the Dickens Hill one. Gilly can go in the Dickens Hill one, she didn't appear apart from in the prison did she? I'm glad we can have 5 images per article, it's just a shame we can't have all of them! 81.158.113.83 11:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Me again, forgot to sign in! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dickens Hill has already been created. anemone
|projectors 11:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dickens Hill has already been created. anemone
- Is there any other storylines that we could write up that would support other minor character merges? Another option for some of our longer minor lists is to split them into two, January - june, and July - December. Then we could have another 5 images per page. 2007 and 2006 would be good candidates for this, as they're twice the size of most of the others.Gungadin♦ 17:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't like the idea of splitting into half years. It doens't seem encyclopaedic. Perhaps there would be some way of putting characters who only appeared in off-set episodes, into the list of off-set episodes, such as Len Harker, but I'm not sure this would actually work. anemone
|projectors 18:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)- I think that could work if some of the offsets were split into their own articles. The Ireland one would be a candidate for that, because there's quite a few sources and OOU stuff to add (the episodes had a negative response from Irish people), so theoretically it's entitled to its own page. But i'm not sure what it could be called though. Other tv shows like smallville have separate articles for individual episodes, but their episodes are always titled. EastEnders stopped giving their episodes titles after 1985 (I think). The majority of the spinoffs could have their own page though, cos they have specific titles.--Gungadin♦ 21:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps EastEnders Ireland episodes would be a good name. I think it would be good to give the Ireland episodes their own article actually. We shouldn't have articles for individual episodes, but for storylines it's ok. What about more family articles? anemone
|projectors 22:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps EastEnders Ireland episodes would be a good name. I think it would be good to give the Ireland episodes their own article actually. We shouldn't have articles for individual episodes, but for storylines it's ok. What about more family articles? anemone
- I think that could work if some of the offsets were split into their own articles. The Ireland one would be a candidate for that, because there's quite a few sources and OOU stuff to add (the episodes had a negative response from Irish people), so theoretically it's entitled to its own page. But i'm not sure what it could be called though. Other tv shows like smallville have separate articles for individual episodes, but their episodes are always titled. EastEnders stopped giving their episodes titles after 1985 (I think). The majority of the spinoffs could have their own page though, cos they have specific titles.--Gungadin♦ 21:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't like the idea of splitting into half years. It doens't seem encyclopaedic. Perhaps there would be some way of putting characters who only appeared in off-set episodes, into the list of off-set episodes, such as Len Harker, but I'm not sure this would actually work. anemone
More Family articles is a good idea, except I dont know if it will be easy to get OOU stuff for it. We'd have to try and discuss the family as opposed to individual characters. This means getting critical analysis that discusses the Mitchells as a family unit (i.e. The Mitchell traits, popularity, characteristics and their role in the show). The Beale/Fowler family doesn't do this at the moment. It is currently just a rehash of individual character storylines. For instance, Ian buying the cafe from Ali and Arthur being sent to prison have nothing to do with the Beale/Fowler family as a topic.Gungadin♦ 18:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Images part 2
Quick! Rettetast went on Wikibreak! Put the images back ;) anemone|projectors 21:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Lol, do you really think we should, or were you just joking? I dunno if you had noticed, but another user mentioned on his talk page that there is no rule for no images in lists. Ive asked him to confirm if this definitely includes character lists. He hasnt replied, but I since noticed that he reincluded the images in the 1990 list, so i'm presuming it's ok to. Gungadin♦ 21:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I spotted that. I'll let you decide if you think I was joking or not... :) anemone
|projectors 22:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)- I decided that you werent joking :) However, this is becoming tiresome and it's really time consuming because the oprhan toga have to be removed from the images. What should we do if he keeps reverting? He's not following a set rule, and refuses to discuss it first, so I dont see what right he has to do this. Perhaps we should just give the ones we want to illustrate their own page, and leave the others without? Gungadin♦ 15:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah we could do that too. You're right, it is tiresome. Maybe that's the best idea then. anemone
|projectors 16:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah we could do that too. You're right, it is tiresome. Maybe that's the best idea then. anemone
- I decided that you werent joking :) However, this is becoming tiresome and it's really time consuming because the oprhan toga have to be removed from the images. What should we do if he keeps reverting? He's not following a set rule, and refuses to discuss it first, so I dont see what right he has to do this. Perhaps we should just give the ones we want to illustrate their own page, and leave the others without? Gungadin♦ 15:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I spotted that. I'll let you decide if you think I was joking or not... :) anemone
Changing the subject...
Please can this be mentioned somewhere! I saw it and thought "they must have filmed that today". — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- No reason why not, any ideas where is could go? Maybe in Minty, but it's possibly more suited for inclusion in a production section, if we have one.Gungadin♦ 00:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- In EastEnders#Filming and also maybe in History of EastEnders#Later history. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 09:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I put it in the filming section :) anemone
|projectors 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I put it in the filming section :) anemone
Changes to template:EastEnders project class
I learnt about Parsar Function thingies today and made what might look like a major change to the template but it's only minor really. Took me ages to get it right. It's just a slight change in categorisation of the pages containing the template. If it doesn't appear to be working properly on any particular page, let me know and I'll fix it. anemone|projectors 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Template:WPEE FUR
This template doesn't work because it doesn't specify which article the image can be used in. Gungadin obviously writes her own rationale each time, but Trampikey still uses the template (and doesn't even substitute it). This isn't good, I suggest we delete the template to discourage its usage. A template shouldn't be used for this. I'm surprised I actually let us get away with it for as long as I have. What do you all think? anemone|projectors 14:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, there's no point in keeping it, cos Betacommand-butt is just scanning everything that's written on the rationale, and if it doesnt see the name of the article or the source etc, then it tags it for deletion. The Bot isnt recognising the words in because its only a template quick link. I hate this Bot. I really dont agree that images should be tagged if they were uploaded before this 10c rule was put into place. If I didnt come on here regularly to check, then most of my images would have been deleted.Gungadin♦ 14:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I always wanted one of these!
| EastEnders articles by quality and importance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality | Importance | ||||||
| NA | Other | Total | |||||
 GA
|
29 | 29 | |||||
| B | 76 | 76 | |||||
| C | 134 | 134 | |||||
| Start | 120 | 120 | |||||
| Stub | 10 | 10 | |||||
| List | 48 | 48 | |||||
| Category | 53 | 53 | |||||
| Disambig | 2 | 2 | |||||
| File | 417 | 417 | |||||
| Project | 28 | 28 | |||||
| Redirect | 64 | 1,418 | 1,482 | ||||
| Template | 7 | 7 | |||||
| Assessed | 64 | 2,342 | 2,406 | ||||
| Unassessed | 3 | 3 | |||||
| Total | 64 | 2,345 | 2,409 | ||||
| WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 1,482 | Ω = 4.02 | |||||
Weeeeeeeee!!!
See also Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/EastEnders articles by quality. anemone|projectors 22:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's pretty, did you make it? We dont have many B or higher, not that it matters though. I'd prefer to keep them all crap, because once they get good the chances that we have to mix with aggravating editors increases, lol Gungadin♦ 22:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've seen it on other WikiProjects and guessed it was something that could be automatically updated. It is, so I managed to find out how to get a bot to create it. I like it :) I think we have a lot of B-class articles that aren't assessed as B-class. anemone
|projectors 23:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've seen it on other WikiProjects and guessed it was something that could be automatically updated. It is, so I managed to find out how to get a bot to create it. I like it :) I think we have a lot of B-class articles that aren't assessed as B-class. anemone
- I like it too :) Gungadin♦ 18:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
EastEnders: The Video Game
http://gaming.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=10303 and http://www.games-digest.com/2007/11/eidos-bag-right.html
Something for the pop culture page :) anemone|projectors 22:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/a79367/eastenders-game-rumour-is-false-says-bbc.html Stephenb (Talk) 22:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Damn, I was literally six emails away from that Google alert! anemone
|projectors 22:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Damn, I was literally six emails away from that Google alert! anemone
One-hander episode
How many pages should we mention this on? I've put it in the news section of the portal already. anemoneIprojectors 16:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- In Dot's real world section, if she ever gets one, and the two-hander page, which I'm thinking needs a bit of condensing in parts.Gungadin♦ 18:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Probably also somewhere on the main EastEnders page. Maybe the episode will be deserving of its own article ;) anemone
Iprojectors 18:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Probably also somewhere on the main EastEnders page. Maybe the episode will be deserving of its own article ;) anemone
Shall I PROD this article? anemoneIprojectors 15:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeh, it's not necessary in my opinion.Gungadin♦ 18:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done. We agreed it wasn't needed before but we didn't do anything about it. I don't want to just delete it and I also don't want to AFD it so PRODding is probably best. Someone will delete it eventually. Unless the template gets removed - and it would be wrong to revert that. anemone
Iprojectors 22:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)- I suppose Trampikey may want it for some reason, but I cant think why. I'm glad it's not going to AFD, remember how much they ridiculed our list of Pets one? lol It would never survive AFD anyway. Gungadin♦ 00:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- If Trampikey really wants it, he can de-PROD it next time he's on. anemone
Iprojectors 00:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- If Trampikey really wants it, he can de-PROD it next time he's on. anemone
- I suppose Trampikey may want it for some reason, but I cant think why. I'm glad it's not going to AFD, remember how much they ridiculed our list of Pets one? lol It would never survive AFD anyway. Gungadin♦ 00:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done. We agreed it wasn't needed before but we didn't do anything about it. I don't want to just delete it and I also don't want to AFD it so PRODding is probably best. Someone will delete it eventually. Unless the template gets removed - and it would be wrong to revert that. anemone
Someone else has de-prodded it now, possibly the person who would have deleted it. What do we do? anemoneIprojectors 17:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Jesus, usually they are desperate to delete our stuff, now we cant delete things even when we want to. We could just redirect it to list of characters perhaps?Gungadin♦ 01:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- lol, I don't know! Redirection sounds like a good idea. Do we really not want it at all? anemone
Iprojectors 02:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)- Nah. We have enough trouble maintaining the important lists and people can just get all that info from family sections in character pages. But we can always wait to see if Trampikey has an opinion first, and if he doesnt then there's no reason for it to be kept.Gungadin♦ 02:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- lol, I don't know! Redirection sounds like a good idea. Do we really not want it at all? anemone
Somebody has AFD'd it now (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of families in EastEnders), so we can have it deleted. anemoneIprojectors 11:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ha! I think I will vote to delete, but I hope this guy doesnt move onto the other lists.Gungadin♦ 14:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Deletion will be better than merging in this case. The other lists should be ok, the only one's I'd worry about now are the residences and the buildings. The characters, crew, spin-offs and off-set episodes lists are more important (and are sourced). anemone
Iprojectors 16:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)- I think there will be ways around losing them all together if someone AFDs them. Such as merging the lists of residences and properties into Albert Square or Walford. The prose would all need to be vastly cut though. Perhaps we could put them in a table and just have ex-residents and years. It will be a shame to lose detail, but I doubt they would be kept if they go to AFD, as it's all unsourced and in-universe info.Gungadin♦ 16:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah that's a good idea. They could all be merged with Walford as I think all the locations are in Walford. Although a table might be difficult for businesses when they've had lots of different names, but I'm sure we'd work it out (or you already have). Also the residences article isn't all people moving in and out, we should also have stuff like births and deaths and other important events that happened in each property like break-ins and fires. I'm sure they can all go in a table too. At least we have a plan if they ever end up at AFD. anemone
Iprojectors 17:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah that's a good idea. They could all be merged with Walford as I think all the locations are in Walford. Although a table might be difficult for businesses when they've had lots of different names, but I'm sure we'd work it out (or you already have). Also the residences article isn't all people moving in and out, we should also have stuff like births and deaths and other important events that happened in each property like break-ins and fires. I'm sure they can all go in a table too. At least we have a plan if they ever end up at AFD. anemone
- I think there will be ways around losing them all together if someone AFDs them. Such as merging the lists of residences and properties into Albert Square or Walford. The prose would all need to be vastly cut though. Perhaps we could put them in a table and just have ex-residents and years. It will be a shame to lose detail, but I doubt they would be kept if they go to AFD, as it's all unsourced and in-universe info.Gungadin♦ 16:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Deletion will be better than merging in this case. The other lists should be ok, the only one's I'd worry about now are the residences and the buildings. The characters, crew, spin-offs and off-set episodes lists are more important (and are sourced). anemone
AFD
If anyone hasn't already noticed, List of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders has been nominated for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders. anemoneIprojectors 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not again. Shall we just merge them into the list of past characters article for now. It would serve the same purpose at the bottom of that, and no one would try to delete it again. Speaking of AFDs, I see that the cull on UK soap characters has started. These are for Corrie, but we might be next, and they will have a field day with all our unsourced, inuniverse articles. We should try bunging in references to avoid this.Gungadin♦ 01:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Would it be right on that page? I guess so. Well they seem to want to merge all those characters, so I think we might be ok. Worst case is that we have longer lists (unfortunately with fewer images). But we can find sources and remember that there is no deadline. anemone
Iprojectors 02:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Would it be right on that page? I guess so. Well they seem to want to merge all those characters, so I think we might be ok. Worst case is that we have longer lists (unfortunately with fewer images). But we can find sources and remember that there is no deadline. anemone
- Past characters is not a perfect place for them I suppose, but I quite like having those lists and wouldnt want them to be deleted from here entirely. I cant think of a good argument for them to stay on AFD, but maybe i'll think of one tomorrow when i'm more alert. If we do put them on Past list then maybe we could also put the old Pet one there too? Gungadin♦ 02:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe we could put the BMD lists back onto the storylines pages, but they would have to be split across the three decades. But that's where they used to be. The pets would be nice to come back, maybe on the past characters list, but not all pets are past. anemone
Iprojectors 14:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)- Shall we do current and past pets in a table at he bottom of each list? I guess listing BMD on storylines is our best option (until someone attempts to AFD it again). Shame to split them, but I suppose it's not really important.Gungadin♦ 17:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe all pets could go on the list of characters (as there's so few), and just use the past characters page for human characters. anemone
Iprojectors 17:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe all pets could go on the list of characters (as there's so few), and just use the past characters page for human characters. anemone
- Shall we do current and past pets in a table at he bottom of each list? I guess listing BMD on storylines is our best option (until someone attempts to AFD it again). Shame to split them, but I suppose it's not really important.Gungadin♦ 17:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe we could put the BMD lists back onto the storylines pages, but they would have to be split across the three decades. But that's where they used to be. The pets would be nice to come back, maybe on the past characters list, but not all pets are past. anemone
I've temporarily saved the deleted page here so feel free to edit that for the purpose of merging :) anemoneIprojectors 13:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've also saved the pets page here. anemone
Iprojectors 11:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
AFD victory at last! :) anemone│projectors 18:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on winning those ridiculous AFD's. Brad (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
What a mess!
Can someone delete all the captions Majormk has just added? I would but I have to go now! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh ok then, I'll do it. But I don't think it's a "mess". anemone
Iprojectors 16:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)- Me either, I can see why it would be useful for some readers to state what year the image was taken.Gungadin♦ 16:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I already reverted. Most images are recent anyway so it doesn't really matter too much to have the captions saying what year they're from. anemone
Iprojectors 17:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I already reverted. Most images are recent anyway so it doesn't really matter too much to have the captions saying what year they're from. anemone
- Me either, I can see why it would be useful for some readers to state what year the image was taken.Gungadin♦ 16:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Congrats
Congratulations to all involved in getting Pauline Fowler up to FA. It looks like you had to struggle against pop-culture biases. Even some valid RSs were shaped as unreliable! The JPStalk to me 12:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think the biggest thanks should go to Gungadin and Elonka for spending so much time and effort on the article. And thank you, The JPS, for your support comment on the FAC, which I think helped a lot. I was expecting it to go on for longer, so it was a lovely surprise this morning. What happens next? Will Pauline end up on the main page? What's our next target for FA? Should we update the WikiProject page to reflect the standard of our new FA? anemone
│projectors 13:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)- Yeh, thanks for your support and comment about the sources, JPS. Clearly some editors just like inventing their own opinion-based wikipedia rules.Gungadin♦ 01:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Collaboration
Should we start a collaberation of the month? I think it would be a good idea so we can clean up articles, find sources for OOU perspective and get things to a better standard. Any thoughts? anemone│projectors 21:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's a good idea. It's only likely to be you and I who are involved though :) Who do you want to do first?
- Also, do you think we should do something about new articles like Oscar Branning? I dont think we can defend the creation of an upcoming new born baby having a separte page. Last week showed that we cant get away with articles like this anymore. Previously articles have been given to every upcoming and future character, but I now think they should only now only get their own page if OOU information and sources can be provided first. It only takes a trigger happy editor to come along and do a mass AFD. We avoided one last week, but we may not be so lucky again. The more bad articles we have, the greater chance they will be noticed by deletionists, and you and I have to do all the work, clean them up, and fight for them on AFDs. Gungadin♦ 15:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know who to do first, but the thought came to me yesterday as I was cleaning up Ronnie Mitchell, as she has some OOU info, and an overly detailed plot summary that needs cleaning up. We could do her, or a different current character or a past one. Seems pointless to vote if there's only two. Maybe Trampikey will be able to come back full time soon. It's good when he comes back, he corrects all the mistakes from the last two weeks! I dunno, I get the feeling you'll end up doing most of the work and I wouldn't feel comfortable with that, seeing as it's my idea! As for Oscar, I think we should put him in the list of minors. New characters probably shouldn't be created without OOU info, we should start them off properly. But we can't stop people creating them. Erm........ oh yeah I was gonna say something about the plot and present tense. Do we want to change this as well when we do a collaberation? anemone
│projectors 19:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)- Ronnie it is then. I'm sure we'll both put in effort, it doesnt matter who does more. We can assign tasks perhaps, and just do what we can. I think this will end up being very productive. Shall we start by collecting sources?
- I don't know who to do first, but the thought came to me yesterday as I was cleaning up Ronnie Mitchell, as she has some OOU info, and an overly detailed plot summary that needs cleaning up. We could do her, or a different current character or a past one. Seems pointless to vote if there's only two. Maybe Trampikey will be able to come back full time soon. It's good when he comes back, he corrects all the mistakes from the last two weeks! I dunno, I get the feeling you'll end up doing most of the work and I wouldn't feel comfortable with that, seeing as it's my idea! As for Oscar, I think we should put him in the list of minors. New characters probably shouldn't be created without OOU info, we should start them off properly. But we can't stop people creating them. Erm........ oh yeah I was gonna say something about the plot and present tense. Do we want to change this as well when we do a collaberation? anemone
- Hopefully Trampikey will get intenet connection at home in time for xmas. If you read this Trampikey, get urself a wireless router and try and connect on your neighbours ISP. That's what my boyfriend used to do. The cheapskate surfed free for a year!!
- I'm fine with changing plot sections to present, but shall we leave the OOU section in past no matter what? I dont like what they did to Pauline, changing constantly from past to present.Gungadin♦ 22:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- If it's Ronnie then I've already put in some effort ;) Yes let's keep OOU sections past. It's just too confusing not to. Collecting sources is a good place to start! anemone
│projectors 23:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- If it's Ronnie then I've already put in some effort ;) Yes let's keep OOU sections past. It's just too confusing not to. Collecting sources is a good place to start! anemone
- I'm fine with changing plot sections to present, but shall we leave the OOU section in past no matter what? I dont like what they did to Pauline, changing constantly from past to present.Gungadin♦ 22:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
In searching for sources I came across this [3] that can be used for several characters. anemone│projectors 13:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Unprotection
The sockpuppets seem to have disappeared so I'm going to try unprotecting our semi-protected articles. If it happens again I think it'll just be easier to revert than to protect, as protection just sends them to a different page. anemone│projectors 21:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm just going to let the bot remove the protection templates because I have a really bad headache :( anemone
│projectors 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
EastEnders: Ireland
Ive just rustled up a page on the Ireland episodes per suggestions a while back. The episodes dont have a name like "Who shot Phil?" so what shall I call the page?
I have a few ideas, do you like any, or have other suggestions?
- EastEnders in Ireland
- Fowlers in Ireland
- Fowler family reunion
- EastEnders Ireland special (it's called that here [4])
Gungadin♦ 21:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- EastEnders episodes in Ireland may be more encyclopaedia-friendly. No idea. I just discovered The Mitchell family! anemone
│projectors 22:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that should be redirected to Peggy or something. Isn't just a copy of all the individial pages?Gungadin♦ 23:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like a copy. And a fair use image nightmare! Sorry for changing the subject ;) anemone
│projectors 23:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like a copy. And a fair use image nightmare! Sorry for changing the subject ;) anemone
- That's ok, i made it per your suggestion. Shall we redirect this Mitchell page? All those images!!! Gungadin♦ 01:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- P.s we can merge in all the special characters now and give some back their images. Trampikey will be pleased I should imagine.Gungadin♦ 01:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Great job! Yeah put all the minor Flahertys in! And redirect the Mitchell's page too. anemone
│projectors 14:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Great job! Yeah put all the minor Flahertys in! And redirect the Mitchell's page too. anemone
Families
We currently have two articles on EastEnders families, The Beale/Fowler family and The Branning/Jackson family. It seems that the standard on Wikipedia is not to include the word "the", as in Skywalker family and McFly family (two notable fictional families). I suggest moving our pages to remove the word "the" but should we use Beale/Fowler family and Branning/Jackson family, or just Beale family and Branning family? I think the latter is probably more correct. anemone│projectors 23:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm happy to go with your suggestion on this :) Gungadin♦ 22:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- But which one, Beale/Fowler and Branning/Jackson or Beale and Branning? anemone
│projectors 22:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)- If you prefer the Beale & Branning, then let's just go for that, because I dont have a strong preference either way.Gungadin♦ 15:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Beale and Branning it is then. anemone
│projectors 18:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)- And at the same time, someone created The Beale and the Fowler Family, which is already listed at AFD!!! Oh, do you think you could do some of you OOU magic on the family articles when you get a chance? Like how the Beales was the first family created and was based on Holland's own family, that kind of thing. anemone
│projectors 19:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- And at the same time, someone created The Beale and the Fowler Family, which is already listed at AFD!!! Oh, do you think you could do some of you OOU magic on the family articles when you get a chance? Like how the Beales was the first family created and was based on Holland's own family, that kind of thing. anemone
- Beale and Branning it is then. anemone
- If you prefer the Beale & Branning, then let's just go for that, because I dont have a strong preference either way.Gungadin♦ 15:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- But which one, Beale/Fowler and Branning/Jackson or Beale and Branning? anemone
oh, that didnt last long anyway :) Good idea about the Beale family. We should put that in a to do list or something. I'll get around to it eventually. Unfortunately I am no longer a student and now have to work, so I wont have the opportunity to do as much editing as I used to. working sucks!! 15:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gungadin (talk • contribs)
- It was speedy deleted because the person who wrote it, blanked it. Not even redirected! Then they tried to paste the same stuff onto the existing article, which was basically a copy of existing character articles, same as the Mitchells' one was! Probably the same person. What, you've got a job??? I demand that you quit so you can edit Wikipedia full time!!! anemone
│projectors 16:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)- lol, I wish I could. I forgot how easy I had it as a fulltime student :) --Gungadin♦ 19:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, things will still get done, just a bit slower. I work full time so I only edit when I'm not working, and I still get stuff done! Don't I?? anemone
│projectors 23:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)- I dont know how you find the energy. Weekends i'm not home much to edit, and weekdays I seem to get too tired and braindead after work, but I'm sure I'll get used to it. I'm not planning on giving up on wiki, everything may take longer now tho :) Shame there's only a few of us doing anything positive to the EE articles. Wish we could recruit some more members to help us out Gungadin♦ 23:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Energy? I don't have much of that. But I also don't have a life! But I normally go through my watchlist when I get home, seeing what's been changed that day, making minor changes and reverting, which can sometimes take all evening especially when I'm doing other things at the same time. This is why I rarely do major edits. It is a shame that some EastEnders fans who decide to join the project, don't really learn the rules of Wikipedia and the project, few seem interested in joining in. There are a few who are good at cleaning up articles, such as that Conquistador(?) fellow (not a member of WP:EE) and Stephenb is still around, but nobody's adding sources, discussing things here, etc. It's just you and me!!!!! anemone
│projectors 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Energy? I don't have much of that. But I also don't have a life! But I normally go through my watchlist when I get home, seeing what's been changed that day, making minor changes and reverting, which can sometimes take all evening especially when I'm doing other things at the same time. This is why I rarely do major edits. It is a shame that some EastEnders fans who decide to join the project, don't really learn the rules of Wikipedia and the project, few seem interested in joining in. There are a few who are good at cleaning up articles, such as that Conquistador(?) fellow (not a member of WP:EE) and Stephenb is still around, but nobody's adding sources, discussing things here, etc. It's just you and me!!!!! anemone
- I dont know how you find the energy. Weekends i'm not home much to edit, and weekdays I seem to get too tired and braindead after work, but I'm sure I'll get used to it. I'm not planning on giving up on wiki, everything may take longer now tho :) Shame there's only a few of us doing anything positive to the EE articles. Wish we could recruit some more members to help us out Gungadin♦ 23:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I work full-time too, and have been rather busy over the last year or so... At most I try and protect articles from vandalism (via patrol/watchlist) and clean-up spelling etc. but I have little time for researching sources or adding significantly to any article, EE or not. Some projects have a "join us" banner that can be posted to contributors' talk pages - might be worthwhile if anyone can find time to create one? Stephenb (Talk) 09:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think Trampikey made a banner already. I wasn't expecting you to notice this! The work you do here is good, it's a shame that others don't join us to help with the research and significant contributions. I'm thankful for the anonymous fans though, they add plot information, even if it is badly written. At least it can be cleaned up. Yes, more members is what we need. anemone
│projectors 10:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)