Recurring[edit]

Should the recurring ones go in the present or maybe get their own drop down box, seeing as they arent past if they come back?GunGagdinMoan 17:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which characters do you mean? Like Sal Martin and Janet Mitchell? Others? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just the ones with their own pages, like Sal and Jim Branning.GunGagdinMoan 19:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jim's in the present section as he's returning next week, apparently full time, (though I know he was in hospital the other day because he was on my mum's ward and she thought it would be funny to do a (bad) impression of Bianca shouting Rickaaay). I put all the other recurring ones with their own pages in past as you never know when they'll return, and when they do it's never for long. As it's only Sal, Janet and maybe Jim, it's not worth giving them a separate section. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alphabetisation?[edit]

I thought I'd suggest this here first rather than make a bold change to a long-standing template: perhaps the present characters section could be alphabetised by surname? This would create consistency with the past characters, and make it easier to find a specific character without having to either read through all the names, or have contextual familiarity with the characters' start dates. Frickative 16:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. And why not do the same for List of EastEnders characters? –anemoneprojectors– 16:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. But not sure about the list, I do prefer it being oldest to youngest. MayhemMario 16:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently, this never happened. I think the list is fine as it is, but alphabetising the template is probably better - I was surprised it wasn't already when I just added Cindy Stephenb (Talk) 07:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah perhaps not for the list, but for this template, it should make them easier to find. Magazines always list them this way. Also means we don't have to check where a character belongs if they are returning. It would look like this...

–anemoneprojectors– 08:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That looks fine to me Stephenb (Talk) 08:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be honest I think it works either way. I have no objection to it changing. If we do change, we might end up with new characters being added to the end though, because some people might not have worked out that it's changed. –anemoneprojectors– 10:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This might be a bit of a thick question, but on the rare occasions when we just have a chararacters first name, where would they be listed in relation to the new order? Bleaney (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By that name, so Fatboy under F. He's the only one we have in the template - we haven't included Tracey or the extras, and we haven't (yet?) added Betty (or Ollie). I think we'll get Betty's last name. –anemoneprojectors– 23:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Past section of this template[edit]

I was just wondering what the criteria for inclusion is for the Past section of this template? Is it characters that have their own pages? Bleaney (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, characters that have their own pages :-) GeorgePing! 07:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Bleaney (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Characters' names[edit]

I have decided to change some of the characters' names to the names that they are recognised by in line with the EastEnders website. I think this change would be necessary because many Wikipedia users do not recognise certain present characters as they are named such as Kat Slater or Sharon Watts. I think it would be worthwhile for them to be called by their actual names on the template. Any other ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.243.196 (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have another idea. Use the article titles per WP:COMMONNAME, which is what we are supposed to do and what we've been doing all along. –anemoneprojectors– 08:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes, please dont change character names without discussing it! Bleaney (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I accept you want to use the Common Name but people are confused when the BBC website and their credited name (which is actually used most of the time) says one thing but Wikipedia says another. It also fuels an unfair reputation of irreliability. For the template, you should use the credited name so it matches the BBC website. Use the name that they actually have then keep the article name as it is. So use the character's actual names. People are being confused. I think that is a sensible compromise and please do not keep on reversing because it makes full sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.243.196 (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.84.246 (talk) Reply[reply]
Who are these 'people' you talk of? What is the basis of your 'decision'? Do you really think this issue hasn't been talked about (many times) before? Yes there will be people who know these characters as their current name, but equally there will be people who know these characters as their common name. If you want the change to happen, discuss it here and build consensus... we did, and thats why the page is presented in the way it is now... sheesh! Bleaney (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are not the BBC and cannot be influenced by the BBC (as if they would even get involved). We are also not a fansite. We are an encyclopaedia, and the articles are written as if the reader has never heard of the subject before. Do you really think someone might see a character called "Zainab Masood" and think "I don't know who this is even though there's a character called Zainab Khan so it must be another Zainab who is currently in the series that I've never heard of"? Absolutely not. There's usually only one character with the same first name at a time (only exception I know of is Billy Mitchell and Billie Jackson) so there's going to be zero confusion apart from complete idiots. –anemoneprojectors– 14:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drop the rudeness and I won't 'sheesh'. I've watched every episode since February 1985 so don't tell me to 'sheesh'. I've been watching the show before any of you two were born. This is an encyclopedia which is why we should use the REAL and CURRENT name for the templates as they are credited. The BBC do care as a matter of fact which is why they sometimes link the character info to the Wikipedia page. You both are threatening Wikipedia's reputation on reliability. Sharon Rickman has not been Watts for 7 years. Zainab Khan has not been Masood for a year. Tanya Cross has not been a Branning for over a year. I will not take lectures from the guy who thought that someone born in 1945 was 18 in 1961! You have not even edited the Beale and Mitchell family trees properly! People use the current names, so use the credited name for the templates.--86.135.89.63 (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't 'tell you to sheesh', its an expression of exasperation, and i'm perfectly entitled to make it. Also, how dare you assume you know my age, I was born way before February 1985, so your assumption that you have been watching the show before any of you two were born is just wrong. Are you really trying to say that there are more people that know Sharon as Rickman than Watts??? Bleaney (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I've been watching the show before any of you two were born." That's funny because it didn't exist before I was born. I think I need to protect the template now... –anemoneprojectors–
Because of the way you both were acting I made the presumption that you were SOMETIME after 1985, however if you want to have a civil discussion about this I will be prepared to retract the statement. People used to know Sharon as Sharon Watts, but she is now credited and known as Sharon Rickman. That is why I propose on the template, she should be Sharon Rickman just as Tanya should be Tanya Branning and Jay should be Jay Mitchell (more people know him as Mitchell than Brown, by the way), so that it matches the credits and their credited names otherwise you will not only be making a mistake but it is completely out of step with current consensus on the names. I don't care about the article's names just the template - we should use the proper credits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not some website at the behest of a guy who cannot even count properly or edit family trees properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.89.63 (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sharon is known as both Watts and Rickman, as well as Mitchell. But she's better known as Watts, which is why the article is currently at Sharon Watts. The template should reflect that. There's no confusion between Sharon Watts and Sharon Rickman because there's no other Sharons in EastEnders. So we use the article name, there's no reason to change it. You just contradicted yourself anyway by saying Tanya should be Branning. And you can do all the family tree updates from now on. –anemoneprojectors– 10:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a spectator, I have always known Sharon as Sharon Watts but I think it would be better if the template was like the EastEnders credits. I remembered when Pat died, the Beeb website redirected people to the Wikipedia page as well as their own page. It would be fair if instead of dogma, both sides made a compromise.--212.97.83.228 (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you even know what the template is for? It's for navigating between Wikipedia articles related to a particular subject and not actually to list the characters in EastEnders. That's why, in the past section, we only list the ones with articles. And because it's for navigating between articles, that's why we use the titles of those articles. It wouldn't be better. It would go against Wikipedia guidelines and policies. –anemoneprojectors– 19:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Though I disagree with a couple of the EastEnders character names on Wikipedia, I completely agree with the WP:COMMONNAME policy, which has been in effect since January 2010, when I started editing here. Sorry to have to say this, but it grips me when people think they can come on here and start commandeering everything like they own the place. These articles are all built on discussion, and the character names on these articles have been carefully decided by the EastEnders WikiProject. You are also assuming names of characters and this goes against WP:CRYSTALBALL. The Common Name page states "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." What we usually do is compare news hits on Google for the most frequently used name. Characters such as Dot Cotton came up with something like 400 news hits whereas Dot Branning came up with something much less such as 50 news hits. It is just common sense to use the characters mostly known names and to be honest, the page will always be found because no matter what people type in Google or the Wikipedia search bar, you will always be taken to the character's common name. Examples include:

I say use the common name as the articles will easily be found anyway. GeorgePing! 21:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes for Christmas[edit]

Derek Branning is dead and Kirsty Branning is a new permanent character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.70.92 (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Derek is done now. How do we know Kirsty is a permanent character? –anemoneprojectors– 16:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just found out. –anemoneprojectors– 16:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of redirects to already included articles[edit]

The list includes characters that link to sections of articles that are also linked in the template. For example, Linda Carter is a redirect to List of EastEnders characters (2013)#Linda Carter. Per WP:NAV, we should "avoid repeating links to the same article within a template", and only link to WP:EXISTING articles, so these need to be removed. My attempts to do this have been reverted. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:NAV is guidance only - it is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Excluding the characters which do not yet have their own article just leaves the navigation box incomplete, as it is (in effect) a collection. Other editors will inevitably try and re-add the links as they will be seen as obviously missing. "Avoiding" does not mean "excluding in all cases"; pragmatically, this is a case where the links are justified. Stephenb (Talk) 18:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Stephenb, no change is needed here. Bleaney (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to see some input from the Template project, but as long as the past characters section doesn't start linking to every character without a standalone article, I won't revert. We should bear in mind that navigation templates are not supposed to replace articles though - if anyone is really interested in current characters, they really should be looking at the List of EastEnders characters, not the template. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When the article was created we said we would never include a "past" character that didn't have a standalone article, and I've never seen any added. If a present character with an article leaves, they're moved, but if they don't have an article, they're just removed. –anemoneprojectors– 09:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually meant to say "when the template was created". AnemoneProjectors 11:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revisiting this

It seems, a couple of years later, I've come back to this navbox and removed the redirects and duplicate links, without remembering this conversation. However, my initial concerns still stand - we should not be linking to articles which don't exist yet, and we should not link to the same article more than once from a navbox, nor should we link to sections of an article. The links should be to notable characters only - if they are not deemed notable enough for a standalone article, they should not be here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usually I would agree (I'm always removing non-articles from musical artist templates) but in this case I still agree with what User:Stephenb said before. Additionally, even WP:NAVBOX only says "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines", not "all templates must...". Also I wanted to ask, why can we not have the executive producers in the template? AnemoneProjectors 11:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But therefore, this is a "bad" template, as it doesn't follow the standard conventions. It's big enough as it is, no need to complicate it further with unnecessary links... To take your musical artist parallel, it's like including links to every song on an album, when only two songs have articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With regard to the crew, there is long-standing consensus against this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Emphasis on the "generally" and the "some" rather than the "good" (hence "not 'all templates must...'"). It doesn't make it a bad template. It isn't complicated, it's just complete. I haven't seen anyone trying to list every song on an album in a template though, it's usually along the lines of a "deluxe edition" re-release of an album that should never have its own article. AnemoneProjectors 12:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A navbox would be "complete" when it links every existing article, not when it lists every single character, regardless of whether or not they have an article. FFS, one of them is a dog!!! --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A complete list of current characters. Why can't a dog be one? We have Wellard, Roly and Willy, so why shouldn't Lady Di be there with all the other current characters? Anyway, you had accepted that as long as the past characters didn't include non-articles, you were ok with it, and that is still the case. AnemoneProjectors 13:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A navbox isn't the place for "a complete list of current characters", that's what articles like List of EastEnders characters are for, where things can be given context. As far as the dog's concerned, it's quite simple - there is no article, therefore we have to deem the character not-notable in their own right, therefore they shouldn't be included. The same as all the other characters without articles. And I hadn't previously said I was okay with it, merely that I wouldn't revert. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seemed to be saying that dogs shouldn't be included in the template, when actually four are. Well, don't revert it then. AnemoneProjectors 13:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm saying any non-notable character should not be included, especially non-notable dog characters. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, they're all notable, they just don't have independent articles yet. AnemoneProjectors 14:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are they really independently notable though? Only the presence of an article gives us an opportunity to assess this. A navbox is not the place to make these claims. Until an article is created, we shouldn't be linking to it, as the function of a navbox is to ease navigation between existing articles, not to multiple sections on the same article. Standard practice is that each article should only be linked to once from a navbox. The more links there are in a navbox actually hinders navigation, as it's more difficult to find the article you are looking for. Especially seeing as there doesn't seem to be any discernible order to the entries. Anyone looking for a complete list of current characters shouldn't be relying on a navbox, they should be looking for List of EastEnders characters, which is already linked to clearly from the navbox. The entries without articles need to be trimmed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many of them are independently notable, we just need more editors who are bothered to do the work. I'm working on a couple at the moment. A lot of the characters without articles listed in the template are recurring so I've often thought they probably don't need to be included. But I do agree that the list is the thing to use if you want to know the current characters, and probably is what people use. I've also wondered if this and the main ((EastEnders)) template could be merged... I wonder a lot of things though. AnemoneProjectors 15:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the point though - where do you draw the line between who is notable and who isn't? Hence the easy test of whether they have an article or not. They can always be added after. I'm torn with the idea of a merge. Seeing as ((EastEnders)) has been added (incorrectly per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL) to every character article anyway, I don't see much harm. There's a small amount of duplication (Dickens Hill, etc) anyway. On the other hand, would readers really want to see the character navbox on every other article? I'd probably lean in favour of a merge, but it might just make the whole thing just a little too big. Maybe TFD it? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bidirectionality is one of the reasons I considered the merge (I tend not to put ((EastEnders)) on EE character pages I create anyway). It would look something like this User:AnemoneProjectors/Templates#EastEnders_with_characters (which happens to only include the articles, not the sections! That's because I did a copy and paste after your edit but before someone else reverted it.) AnemoneProjectors 16:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be okay with the merge (there are other larger navboxes out there after all!), but it may be too large for some tastes, especially seeing as the characters are a natural split. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're probably right about the natural split, seems like it should be left separate. And I guess with this template being for only articles.... I'm kind of happy to leave it however it's left by others (as long as it doesn't end up as an edit war). AnemoneProjectors 16:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revisiting this again

I think I now support the removal of redirects from this page for a couple of reasons - certain recurring characters are listed without knowing if they will appear again (i.e. Andy Jones was added after one appearance but how long will he stay in the template without appearing again?), it's a good way of knowing when an article is created (or indeed deleted or redirected), and also there have been times when I needed to view or edit every character page so I would go to the template clicking on the names, meaning I would annoyingly open up certain lists multiple times, which would be avoided by removing the redirects. The last one is obviously the navigation aspect, which is the whole point - I no longer think that listing redirects is aiding navigation. anemoneprojectors 12:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also it might encourage people to write articles about the main characters that need them (Pam, Les, Donna, Claudette, Kyle, Buster, Lee, Johnny, Kush, Carmel, etc). anemoneprojectors 12:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However if people don't want to remove all redirects, I would be happy with only including articles plus main characters, so Les, Johnny, Babe, Lee, Donna, Pam, Elaine(?), Kush, Buster, Claudette, Carmel, Gavin, Andy and Shakil would stay, and the rest of the redirects would go (especially when they are minor recurring characters that actually may never appear again, but we don't know). anemoneprojectors 09:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Robsinden: What do you think? anemoneprojectors 10:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for pinging me, but I think you already know what I'm going to say! I'd support removal of characters without articles, but can see the merit in your suggested compromise of leaving the redirects for major characters if there is no consensus for wholesale removal. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I know... Just wanted anyone to respond really! I think I'll just see what happens and ask reverters to join the discussion! anemoneprojectors 15:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ordering by first name?[edit]

I'm wondering if the characters should be ordered by their first names, because I think it would make them easier to find. I've thought it for ages to be honest. AnemoneProjectors 14:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bobby Beale[edit]

Should he be moved back to present and future as he is still a recurring character? Dunarc (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. — anemoneprojectors 17:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I have moved him. Dunarc (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2018[edit]

The Lynne Hobbs page has been remaned to Lynne Slater, can somebody change the template please? :) 176.26.76.101 (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You changed the redirect Slater->Hobbs to Hobbs->Slater without any explanation whatsoever. It was reverted since we suspected it was vandalism. XYZt (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done: Since Hobbs article is currently the main article, no edits need to be made at this time. Dolotta (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2018[edit]

Please add Sarah Hills to past characters, cheers. 94.6.235.46 (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Sarah Hills is still a redirect. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 13:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2019[edit]

Mel Owen to be put into Past Characters template and removed from present. 2A04:4A43:46FF:AB1F:55A5:2C29:A548:EE88 (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done - Soaper1234 - talk 22:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020[edit]

Change "Present" back to "Present And Future" because there is a returning character in the present section. 82.17.221.173 (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit semi-protected)) template. This is because the template in question appears to have switched between "Present" and "Present And Future" on several occasions. -- S.Hinakawa (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously it means currently, look can you change it back to "Present and Future" because it makes no sense to put a returning character in a section saying "Present Characters" so there.82.17.221.173 (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories