Talk:List of EastEnders characters (1985)

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

Barnesy end date[edit]

This source says Barnsey's last appearance was on 1 May 1990, but the article says January 1989 - which is correct? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 00:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I think that was the day Den was supposedly buried, so he could of made an appearance. I have seen that episode a while ago but didnt pay attention to him because I wasnt familiar with him. I assumed it was a mistake on Walford.net's part, they seem to have made a lot of mistakes with the dates for 1988-1989 characters, especially the Dickens Hill ones. Best to leave it out until we can confirm.Gungadin 00:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way you can see the episode again? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was on one of those UK Gold marathon things, so I dont have the episode at hand. It does make sense that he appeared at the funeral though. He and Den were close, they talked about meeting on the outside and Den said he'd give him a job at his bar. But then Den was killed and I dont think they mentioned whether Barnes got off at his trial or not. I'll try and find out though.Gungadin 01:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers :) -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 01:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is it Barnesy or Barnsey? Barnesy would make more sense... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 17:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but he's credited as Barnsey.Gungadin 18:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Hancock EE.png[edit]

Image:Hancock EE.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the article[edit]

what exactly needs to be done on this page is it something to do with the order of the characters,watever it is id be happy to help:) Brianwazere 23:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't know what order the characters appeared in the first episode, I just knew who was in the first scene, so I put them in sort of random order. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey[edit]

I think that Tracey should have her own page due to her being in Eastenders since 19 February 1985 and she has had speking roles and has constantly appeard since her first apperance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheep 2009 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's an extra who has a few lines. We have no real-world information about the character, so the article would be nothing but plot. It would be very short, and would just end up being merged back here for failing Wikipedia's guidelines on writing about fiction. AnemoneProjectors 20:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the Tracey section: [1] - Trampikey 81.152.34.202 (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She should have her own article surely by now? JackJackUK (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my sandbox article for her here, which I will start editing on, when I have time. MayhemMario 20:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Find some sources then Jack! Bleaney (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still fully opposed to this. –AnemoneProjectors– 14:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@AnemoneProjectors How can you justify allowing Poppy Meadow her own article, who appeared for LESS than a year, and wasn't even a regular, than Tracy who has been in the show since its launch. It's an insult to the character. JackJackUK (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you're missing the fact that Tracey is only an extra and she has barely had any notable storylines apart from sleeping with, who was it, Dennis Rickman? And getting kidnapped by someone. She's good in the list I reckon. GSorby – Ping 18:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because, Jack, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an invalid argument. –AnemoneProjectors– 16:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really answer why Tracey shouldn't get her own article though does it? JackJackUK (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because she's an extra, not a character. Her list entry can be expanded if the information is good enough and she should be used to bulk out that list. We don't need to split every character. It's gone into overkill lately, and this has turned into a fansite. (Gone now until tomorrow) –AnemoneProjectors– 16:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological vs. general sense?[edit]

I thought the list is too messy as chronological. However, I did not read the introduction, as I realized that the list is meant to be chronological. Still, the TOC looks too messy, especially if the intro is barely read. What is trivial, and what is relevant? --George Ho (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think is trivial and relevant? I'm not sure to what you refer. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anymore. I have good intentions, but I never thought about consequences. Now I'm feeling ashamed about restructing edits here. However, well, I didn't read this page, but maybe I've been inexcusable. --George Ho (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out previous comments I made, so I hope complications lessen. To be honest, nothing is trivial here. I just said it because... I don't know what to say. Putting characters into chronological order is... necessary, but I also did arranging contents into family order for general use. --George Ho (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reg Cox images[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Both images are now orphaned. Re-inclusion of these photos are opposed. Next time, I will wait for consensus before I make bold actions again. --George Ho (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both images are nominated for deletion, and they are still removed without discussing the image there. Maybe there have been failures to communicate a lot. I tried to give you FFD notice about both images, but... I don't know. Is {{ffdc}} meaningless? By the way, they are discussed in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 March 16. Also, I tried WP:DRV in WP:deletion review#File:Reg Cox.jpg rather than WP:REFUND because I figured that you don't approve, but Fastily saw my request as "non-controversial". I can't find words to explain the whole situation.

Without causing ruckus as before, may these both images be added back with FFD caption, please? Here: [2] [3]. --George Ho (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew FFD discussion because... I "cause drama" and am "highly disruptive", according to Raintheone. Wait, here's another revision if you want to add back: [4]. --George Ho (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the sort of behaviour I was refering to. Please keep this discussion based on the article - in addition there is an active discussion on this topic at the talk page at WP:EE.Rain the 1 01:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I won't be a "drama queen" here, okay? Now, let's get back on the Reg Cox image. I see both images as educational, even if they're not that important or unnecessary. Yes, three of you in WP:EE oppose adding back those images. But I added back two in section because... I don't want them orphaned again. I did read the story, and I simply could not imagine how Reg looked dead as much as the image did. In fact, I could not see how removing them benefits anything. --George Ho (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
George, now it is 4 WP:EE members who do not want them. The image of Reg dead is very poor anyway. Even you as a picture expert could see that, right? Just delete them and end this petty argument. MayhemMario 12:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Dan Evans[edit]

Someone has added an entire section on here about a character called Dan Evans. I know a lot of the characters on this list are unsourced, but is there any way of knowing if this character actually featured, or is this hoax? Bleaney (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im inclined to think that it is a hoax. The user has created the actor's page in tthe last 3 days, as well as the redirect, and has made up serveral comments such as;

"In mid-2004, Rodgers announced that he would not be renewing his contract to the show and would be departing the show in late-2004. Before his departure the character was involved in one last storyline which saw him embark on a short-lived affair with Rita Kane behind Maureen's back. Riddled with guilt, Bryan confessed his wrong-doing to Maureen who at first rejected him but they soon reconciled and planned a new life in Canada. Rodgers left the show on the 29 December 2004 and his final appearance was broadcast on the 2 January 2005. Since his initial departure from the show, Rodgers has made two one off re-appearances to the show on the 17 February 2006 for Pauline Fowler's wedding to Joe Macer and on the 1 January 2007 fro Pauline's funeral. In December 2009 it was announced that Rodgers had signed a new five month contract to the show, and would be involved in a new storyline. Rodgers returned to the show as Bryan on the 17 February 2010, and a storyline unfolded which was the fact that Maureen had thrown him out of their home in Canada after he gambled away £530. Bryan came back to Walford and stayed with his friend Phil Mitchell. On the 1 May 2010, Maureen arrived in Walford looking for Bryan. She revealed to Bryan that she had sold the house of Canada to make some money, and in the meanwhile they could stay with Maureen's mother on the Isle of Mann. At firstxBryan is angered, but soon realises that he brought it upon himself, and Rodgers left the show again on the 12 July 2005. It is rumoured that Rodgers is to return to the show in late-2013, but these rumours have not yet been confirmed".

Now I think this is definetly a hoax, as the character is meant to return (which is untrue), and he has made up a load of rubbih about a character which never appeared. He also lists the actor as having a award, though this is not tthe case. — M.Mario (T/C) 14:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mario, ive been bold and deleted it! Bleaney (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that IP has a user account, Ohio 99 (contribs-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ohio99), so we'll probably have to go through an delete al the edits that IP made and the account. — M.Mario (T/C) 14:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely a hoax. I have all EastEnders episodes on my hard drive and I looked at the episode "Dan Evans" supposedly appeared in (1 August) and I never saw him at all and he wasn't credited. I tried to look at Dan supposed departure episode but there was no episode broadcast on 22 December 1985. Will remove now. GeorgePing! 14:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been removed, but the user made a redirect to the character on the 1990 list (which I have deleted), named Bryan Coleman (EastEnders), what do we do with the redirect? Also, the two accounts are linked, sockpuppetry case? — M.Mario (T/C) 14:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do I do with the empty redirect of Clive Bradshaw and Bryan Coleman (EastEnders)??? — M.Mario (T/C) 14:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has happened before, but I can't remember who the puppet master is at the moment. In the future tag the hoaxes for deletion. - JuneGloom Talk 19:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It could be Jake Picasso (talk · contribs). - JuneGloom Talk 19:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could well be him. Hoped he was gone for good! –AnemoneProjectors– 12:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of EastEnders characters (1985). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of EastEnders characters (1985). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of EastEnders characters (1985). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ron first episode[edit]

Did he definitely appear in episode 14? Because I didn't see him until episode 37 when he was in the café. I just wanted to double check. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 23:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No he didn't. Sorry, at the time when I first saw him I didn't realise the episodes I'd been watching had been wrongly labelled and I'd never even seen episodes 9 to 12! He does definitely appear in episode 18, in a scene in the pub. 92.1.208.125 (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I might see if I can rewatch that episode and spot him. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 23:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 January 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. I am withdrawing this request as it has been brought to my attention that this is a substantially bigger issue, involving a much larger subset of articles. BD2412 T 14:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– The current titles are deficient for two reasons. First, they are nonstandard to how we title lists by year (e.g., List of animated feature films of 1995, List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 2004, List of foreign ministers in 1989, Deaths in January 2007). Second, the titles are misleading because the articles only list characters introduced in that year, not all characters on the show during that year. BD2412 T 20:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Lists has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject London has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Fictional characters has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Soap Operas has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject EastEnders has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/unsure - Whilst I the reason for doing so, I think this would just make the titles way too long, as then this would have to change for all soap operas for consistency, and some of the USA ones have longer titles (e.g. List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters (2020s)). DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is widespread use of nonstandard misleading titles, then they should all be brought to the standard and made accurate in their scope. List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters introduced in the 2020s is not a burden as a title length. BD2412 T 23:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That is what I said ‐ I said that if these pages change, the other soaps pages would have to be changed. I am still on the fence. I am still unsure in all honesty. I do think that the length would still be an issue and that have just "(year)" is clearer, especially as the leads say in the second sentence that it is a list of characters that *debuted* in that year. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - For me, if we have to change the EastEnders characters pages from saying List of EastEnders characters to List of EastEnders characters introduced in 1985 or List of EastEnders characters introduced in 2023, it could set a precedent that we need to change the rest of every list of soap characters in Wikipedia just to be consistent if this change would be implemented. In addition, we would have to pages like these with longer titles. While the latter issue I have with this potential change is not necessary bad, I just don't think it's worth the risk of changing one soap's list of characters if it means to changing the rest of every list of soap opera characters. 174.44.191.134 (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_EastEnders_characters_(1985)&oldid=1207707354"