Talk:List of EastEnders characters/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1

←

Archive 5

Edit request on 26 May 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

109.76.19.77 (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. –anemone projectors– 15:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Carl White

He has already appeared on-screen, the page needs to be updated --81.106.93.114 (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Betty has appeared tonight, too. Any particular reason why this page is always protected, preventing some of us from contributing? --81.106.93.114 (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The page was last protected by User:Bagumba for "Frequent unsourced edits and unexplained removal of text", for a period of one year. I hadn't realised it was protected for that long. That was because the protection before then was for 6 months. I think that's long enough now, it's due to be lifted in August so I'll just unprotect it now. I'd update the page myself but I'm not normally online when EastEnders is on, and in fact I normally watch EastEnders the following morning on iPlayer. –anemone projectors– 22:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The return of David Wicks???

I'm going to start this discussion now in the hope that editors will discuss this issue here first rather than edit warring on this page. A couple of days ago the Daily Mirror reported that David Wicks will be returning to EastEnders -

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/eastenders-love-rat-david-wicks-1874818

However his return has NOT been confirmed by the BBC. Digital Spy re-reported this, but interestingly they did not state it as fact -

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a479506/eastenders-michael-french-to-return-as-david-wicks.html

Now personally I think a David Wicks return is quite likely, but we have a long-standing convention on here that we dont include 'returning' characters until the BBC has confirmed the return, and I think we should wait for their confirmation. As has been discussed before on here, the Tabloid newspapers have a variable history on reporting soap cast changes accurately. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag, and however likely a story, we should wait for official confirmation. Bleaney (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Normally a returning character will be reported by the BBC, but we don't always wait for them. In this case, we should. Sharon Marshall said on This Morning that it would be nice for him to come back but would not confirm nor deny. And she knows everything :-) –anemone projectors– 08:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

We should because Sharon Marshall said it would be nice..? Stephenb (Talk) 08:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why what I said confused you. We should wait because it hasn't been officially confirmed. She could have confirmed it, but wouldn't. She's the soap gossip person on This Morning and writes for EastEnders too. –anemone projectors– 08:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha..! I was confused as to why SM had anything to do with any inclusion (or not), tbh... Anyway, I agree with you :) Stephenb (Talk) 09:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well sometimes we don't need the BBC to confirm it, I think that's the point I was trying to make. :-) –anemone projectors– 10:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's being widely reported now from almost every news source I see, but still no official confirmation. Can they all be wrong? It all seems to go back to that Mirror article, stated at the top of this section. It's really annoying. They says he's "agreed terms" and there's an "insider" quote too. It does sound real, but are we really still waiting in case it's really not true? Can we find out for sure? –anemone projectors– 15:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I did a search earlier and it does seem to be taken as happening by a number of sites, but not places like "Radio Times", and nothing with a reliable BBC quote :( Until such time, I still think it's just rumour. If he is turning up, I'm sure something reliable will be published soon. Stephenb (Talk) 16:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sure. This kind of thing has happened before though, so yeah, keep waiting. –anemone projectors– 10:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, if David is coming back as a regular character, they cant 'sneak' Michael French in, he will be spotted recording at Elstree, and presumably he will be seen on the webcam. I'm guessing that if this is true, then Michael French hasn't started filming yet, and when he does the beeb will announce it. Bleaney (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds about right. Though returning characters tend to be announced in advance. –anemone projectors– 08:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

They do, yes. But it seems the BBC have form in keeping David's returns a secret (His return wasn't announced for Pat's death). However the Mirror story suggests Michael French is returning permanently this time (as opposed to a just few episodes where they can keep the character secret). So IF Michael French is joining 'EastEnders' permanently again I can't see them surprising us on-screen, the BBC will have to announce his return officially in advance. It should definately be a wait and see in this case. Bleaney (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree. It's not like Kirsty, where Kierston Wareing hadn't been in EastEnders before so she was able to lie to people who saw her going to the studios. Michael French wouldn't be able to do that. –anemone projectors– 09:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed apparently! Please update. –anemone projectors– 20:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

They've released that before the embargo! ahahhahaha find out tonight I guess! –anemone projectors– 20:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the article. - JuneGloom Talk 20:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yay well done, but I wonder if someone will get in trouble at What's on TV! –anemone projectors– 21:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Aw, I hope not. Hopefully it was just a mistake. - JuneGloom Talk 22:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. 1) we all knew anyway and 2) it was only a few hours early. –anemone projectors– 22:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Adam White

Adam's appearing again per this ref.^[1] Should we list him as returning, and then put him as a recurring character (since this is his 4th appearance since December), or just put him as recurring now? Or not list him here at all? –anemone projectors– 09:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say just add him to the recurring list now, he's never really left per our own conventions. Bleaney (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what I'd have said, so

Done –anemone projectors– 14:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Carl disowned Adam completely, so do we think he should still be "present"? –anemone projectors– 10:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Nah. If he's got no forthcoming appearances scheduled, i'd say clear him out. Bleaney (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Not as far as I know, in the next couple of weeks. –anemone projectors– 11:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Done we can always just slip him back into the list if he does pop up again in the next year.- Bleaney (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Trish Barnes

Is she even around anymore? I can't remember the last time we saw her...shouldn't she be moved to the past characters? --81.106.93.114 (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Trish was last seen on 23 August, so not even a month ago. She may still be appearing, and prior consensus is to wait a year just in case a character like this pops up again, unless it's almost certain they won't (based on storylines). In Trish's case, she could well still appear, so best to keep her there. –anemone projectors– 19:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Shirley Carter

Official website now has her as a past character but with no announcement that she was leaving, I smell another "Denise in the basement", and they're trying to throw us off the scent by putting her has past. Should we mark her as past? –anemone projectors– 15:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No. I smell a rat. No official announcement... and there would have been one. Bleaney (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

While Shirley has basically become a pointless character they would still make a fuss about her exit. Maybe they are trying to create a shock storyline and have her turn up. It is no secret that the show has hit rock bottom - they could be hiding secret storylines like this one, to generate more interest.Rain the 1 22:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

They didn't hide it for long - [1] - JuneGloom Talk 23:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hahahahaha!!! Bleaney (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Asif. Always hoped she would return to Holby one day.Rain the 1 23:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I always wondered if Tina would turn up. I don't suppose Zsa Zsa will return though. –anemone projectors– 07:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sonia Fowler

I think its way too early to report Sonia Fowler's return as fact... even the report itself suggests the terms haven't been agreed yet and what if they fall through? No confirmation from the BBC... I really think we should remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a gossip column! Bleaney (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

True, you're right, it could all fall through. Let's wait. Hopefully won't be long anyway. –anemone projectors– 15:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reversed all the changes, but re-added the unconfirmed reports on her return to the character page. I highly suspect a return, but as much as we like to be up-to-date on here, lets remember that the Tabloids often mis-report soap arrivals and returns... after all it was reported that Peggy was returning for Pat's death which never happened... We should be more reliable than the tabloids people, and lets keep it that way! Bleaney (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As I suspected, the story has been confirmed by the beeb, and thanks to those editors who have made the necessary changes. I know some might feel that I was being overly pedantic about this, but I stand by my stance... only when the beeb or the actor themselves confirm an arrival/return should it be listed here (although we can use any reliable source as a reference). The only exception to this should be those very rare situations when the BBC practically admit that they are keeping something secret... and then I think we shoud have a debate on here on whether its appropriate or not. Do we want to be a site for spoilers? But I appreciate accuracy is important... - Bleaney (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Spraggen kids

Terry' s kids have been confirmed as:

Rosie Spraggen (Jerzey Swingler)

Terry Spraggan Jr (George Sargent')

Do we add them or not?? --#Soaper1234 (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Only with a reliable source. Where did you get this info from? All I can see is forums and fansites. I don't think "EastEnders Ultra" is a reliable source. –anemone projectors– 08:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

What about this source for Jerzey Swingler - [2]? - JuneGloom Talk 13:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw that as well but it doesn't say what character she's playing. We can add her with that reference, but not the character. If they're appearing in w/c 4 November (are they?) then we'll know about it on Monday - BBC Programmes now add the entire next week of episodes on Monday rather than just the one that's 7 days away. –anemone projectors– 17:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's no harm in waiting until Monday then. - JuneGloom Talk 17:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh apparently they release them on the Sunday now not the Monday! There you go! –anemone projectors– 09:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Talking of the Spraggan kids - does anyone think we should merge them together in List of EastEnders characters (2013)? Real-world info is a bit lacking at the moment. –anemone projectors– 15:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. - JuneGloom Talk 15:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Doing it now –anemone projectors– 19:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Tommy Moon actor

In the most recent Inside Soap, Shane Richie talks about "Ralph, the lad who plays Tommy" but makes no mention of Shane, who we discovered was also playing Tommy from this source (which I can't get to load, is it dead? This link works if it is). Should we put Shane as a past actor? –anemone projectors– 12:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Bella Young & Carter dog

In the credits for 21 November it says Bella' s name is Bella Stone (this could mean the rumours are true about Sadie-Jake). Could we change it to that? Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03jb0pj

The Carter dog is called Lady Di - would that get added to future characters or not? Source: http://www.soapsquawk.co.uk/news/princess-diana-in-eastenders.php#.Un9TPDDFJcs

Thanks, --#Soaper1234 (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I already added Stone as an alias for Bella, though I'm not sure about changing it just yet. Maybe we should want for the episodes to play out. And obviously we can't say that Bella is Jake's daughter and Sadie is Jake's wife without reliable sources (which is why I didn't do it, but did you see my edit summary?). –anemone projectors– 17:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

And yes I think the dog should be placed on the list, because there's lots of real-world information (like with Wellard, Roly and Willy, but unlike many others). –anemone projectors– 17:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

They changed Bella's name back to Young in the credits. –anemone projectors– 12:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

But she was Bella Stone in the broadcast. Change? She was probably only credited as Bella Young so we wouldn't work it out. –anemone projectors– 10:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The Brannings are also getting a dog but no details have been released yet :-) –anemone projectors– 12:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

And now they have :D –anemone projectors– 12:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Cindy Williams

Cindy Williams listed as recurring, which is probably wise as the character is 14. However believe Liam Butcher is 14, but we class him as regular as the actor who plays him is 16+. Does anyone know the age of the actress playing Cindy? - Bleaney (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I see she has been changed to regular now. So what do people think? In the past we have kind of used the actor becoming 16 as the signpost to move a child character to regular. This is due to under-16s being unable to appear as regularly in a TV show than adults. But as previously stated, the character of Liam is 14 but the actor is 16. Anyone have any thoughts? - Bleaney (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the actress is probably older than the character. All signs point towards her being a regular character anyway. I hadn't even considered otherwise. I tried finding out her age but can't. I even checked birth records, but there are no matches - just people with a middle initial M. So she's either missing (unlikely?), not born in the UK or Mimi isn't her real first name. –anemone projectors– 08:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but in the credits, they tend to put recurring and guest characters at the bottom (unless they are involved in the doof doof moment), and Cindy's next few episodes all have her in the middle or near the top. –anemone projectors– 08:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool, happy for her to be a regular then. its neater that way anyway. - Bleaney (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have a feeling you were right all along and she's recurring. Since the week away, she's only been seen once, spending all the cash, and has been at the bottom of the credits with the other children. –anemone projectors– 15:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There's an article now for the actress, which says she's in year 11 at school, though unreferenced. If that's true, she's probably 15, but depends when her birthday is. But just looking at the programme and the credits, I think she's recurring now. –anemone projectors– 16:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Still think we should put Cindy as recurring. Anyone? –anemone projectors– 12:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Dogs

Should we keep them with the recurring characters or add an animals section? –anemone projectors– 19:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh I personally think its all a bit much... how do we know one of the dogs doesn't get run over tomorrow? Did Abi's guinea pig have its own listing? Bleaney (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No, but Wellard, Roly and Willy have their own articles and are in list of past EastEnders characters. Lady Di and Tramp have their own list entries, so we should include these ones in this list. No other pets have articles or list entries. But as there's only two, leaving them in the recurring section is probably fine. –anemone projectors– 09:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It just seems way too soon, Did Betty (Pauline's dog) have its own entry? Isn't the whole point that Wellard, Roly and Willy became notable in their own right which justified an entry/article? At this stage I think of these dogs as props. At least let them have some storylines of their own which have some notablity before we list them individually surely? To be honest I think Lady Di and Tramp's entries should be integrated into their owners entries UNTIL they build up enough notability (beyond their 'casting' and introduction) to justify a separate entry. - Bleaney (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

How are they any different to Lexi Pearce or Scarlett Moon or any other baby that is just a "prop"? Betty never had a list entry - we have no real-world information about Betty. We have real world information about Tramp and Lady Di, just like we do about Willy, Roly and Wellard. We don't merge babies with their families, so we shouldn't merge these pets with their owners. Where would you merge them to anyway? Tramp is owned by three characters; Lady Di by four. They are as much characters in EastEnders as any non-speaking, non-acting infant character - in fact they're probably moreso because they're actually trained animals. The default for new characters is always to put them in the yearly lists - not in articles about members of their family. –anemone projectors– 22:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's my personal opinion of course, but the difference for me? Lexi Pearce & Scarlett Moon are PEOPLE! It just looks really fansitey to me and over the top, is it Wikipedia policy to include animals in cast lists? If it is then Wikipedia is really going to the dogs (literally)... Bleaney (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's a policy on this. But Tramp is as much a character as Wellard, (and yes, Betty too) and as we have real-world information, it's fine to include these animals. We don't normally get that much real-world information about babies. I'm not saying we should include all the pets now, but the real-world information makes a difference. –anemone projectors– 09:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well if real world info is the threshold, why not lets blast it right open.... I'm sure I could find stuff for the Queen Victoria bust.... maybe Arthur's bench... should they have entries too? Bleaney (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly. They're not characters. –anemone projectors– 17:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

These characters are only comparible to characters that are babies. They're more notable than most babies. Just because a character isn't human doesn't mean they're not a character. Also, Lady Di was announced on 10 November so you had over three weeks to object to that list entry. I only asked if we should have a separate section in this list. The answer is no, so why are we still debating? –anemone projectors– 18:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And if you're disputing that a dog can be a character, reliable sources state otherwise - "new canine character heading for Albert Square", "there's another even more significant new character – Mick's dog". I just don't know how you can argue against them when three dogs in EastEnders already have articles. –anemone projectors– 18:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. I cant be bothered. Bleaney (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Lily Branning

Do we add Lily to returning characters with Stacey as she is more than likely to return with Stacey --#Soaper1234 (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems likely she will return, but do we have a source? I suppose its the same situation as Sonia/Rebecca... ? Bleaney (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We can say a character is returning when we have a realiable source that says they are returning. No sources that I know of have said that Lily is returning with Stacey, so the answer is no at the moment. –anemone projectors– 10:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

As I thought, we have to wait for a source confirming her return with Stace. I suspect she will, though it would probably be more interesting if she doesn't... Bleaney (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, anything could have happened to Lily, we just don't know. If she is returning, I'm sure a source will confirm it before it happens. She'll be coming up to 4 years old, I think, by the time Stacey's back, so there probably won't be a casting announcement, but if she does return, someone's bound to say something along the lines of "Lacey Turner returned to filming yesterday as Stacey with her daughter Lily", or a storyline spoiler will confirm it. –anemone projectors– 14:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Nancy Carter's arrival

I have a feeling we won't see Nancy until 2014. Sharon Marshall, a few weeks ago on This Morning, heavily implied (I don't remember her exact words) that the last of the Carters would appear at New Year, and Nancy's not mentioned in spoilers until 1 January. Should we move her from 2013 to 2014? Does anyone else know of any other information that could help us decide? –anemone projectors– 11:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Credits for the rest of 2013 have been released and she's not included, so I've moved her to a new 2014 list. –anemone projectors– 09:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, 31 December isn't out yet, oops. But I still think this is right. If anyone objects, I'll revert it. –anemone projectors– 09:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted myself because Radio Times has listed her in December, though they have made mistakes before. We shall have to wait and see. –anemone projectors– 10:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Soap joiners, movers and leavers has been updated today and it says 1 January so you were right. ThisIsDanny (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep when BBC Programmes published the last ep of December and the first eps of January, I knew then. –anemone projectors– 21:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Scarlett

Carol said Scarlett will stay with Diane. Diane isn't returning so we won't see Scarlett's exit. Do we wait for the next episode? (Or did I miss a scene? I may not have been paying full attention.) –anemone projectors– 22:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Carol said that, but we haven't had any other mention. Carol didn't state how long it would take Diane to fetch her so Scarlett may appear again. A short wait & see? Bleaney (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should wait for the next Carol episode - though probably the fact that they had Carol mention it means that that would be their explanation as to why Scarlett wouldn't appear again, and now she won't appear again. But just wait a bit longer. –anemone projectors– 10:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Or even to see what happens when Janine's final scenes are shown. –anemone projectors– 23:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed... Bleaney (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Janine's departure

Currently down for this month, as confirmed by Digital Spy, but Charlie Brooks said in Soaplife: "The Christmas scenes aren't my exit scenes. There are more to come..." But she's not credited after 25 December, with BBC Programmes currently going as far as 10 January. Dominic TC said "You'll see Charlie Brooks's exit story. There will be a coda to that story. It's not going to be the last you'll see of Janine, but that's all I'll say at the moment." So do we think she'll actually go in 2014? –anemone projectors– 18:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

From what Digital Spy says, Janine has already left [3]. Boushenheiser (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they did say that, and it's easy to assume it was her exit. But Charlie Brooks, the actress who plays Janine and knows what scenes she's filmed, said it wasn't her exit. What should we do? –anemone projectors– 11:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait and see is all I can say. Boushenheiser (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps Alice may hold the clue to this... she still has upcoming appearances? - Bleaney (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

{http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a540781/eastenders-denies-janine-butcher-exit-plot-changes.html This] confirms that Janine will appear again in early 2014, so I think keep her in. Alice is gone though. - 18:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been seeing in several soap mags that I've been reading today, mentions that Janine will be back. So I'm glad I made sure Janine stayed as present. I was disappointed with Alice's exit though. –anemone projectors– 23:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Digital Spy are now showing Charlie Brooks as reappearing in a guest role in "Early 2014". Meanwhile the official EastEnders site is still showing Alice and Janine, yet Joey, who is supposed to have left around the same time, has been removed. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sadie departing

Yes she said "I was only ever brought in for this storyline, so I know where it's all going and I think it's a really great ending" but the source doesn't explicitely state that the character is actually leaving and DTC could have renewed her contract, so should we really list Sadie as a departing character based on that source? It feels slightly like WP:OR to me, based on personal interpretation. –anemone projectors– 12:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

She also says "But working here has been the most fantastic experience. It's a huge machine and I don't know how they keep it running, but they do! There's great directors and actors coming in and out. It's been a really fantastic experience, so I will never forget it." which also implies she's left already! We have no evidence of DTC renewing her contract (or even that this is expected). Stephenb (Talk) 15:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That still doesn't say that she's leaving, though. It's what you interpret it to mean. She probably is leaving, but until a source states that she is, then we can't say she is. –anemone projectors– 15:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I was going to say that Digital Spy's "Soapland's joiners, movers and leavers" would probably confirm it soon, but I didn't expect it to be today. –anemone projectors– 16:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

In the present character list it says "2013–14" for Sadie. Are we right to assume it's 2014? In both sources it doesn't specifically say, it just says when the storyline ends, and we still don't know when that is yet. It could be at the end of this year. ThisIsDanny (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

True, Digital Spy doesn't know, so we can't tell. It could well be this year, and the actress did imply she'd already left. Do we put "2013/14"?. –anemone projectors– 16:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a tough one. I mean we use actors confirmed twitter accounts as sources for someone joining/leaving EE, and I dont know that the actress could be misinterpreted in that she definitely is leaving. What is ambiguous is when... i'm tempted to think she has finished filming because she does talk about the show in the past tense, however she could still be there, just simply preparing for her exit, and looking backin the past tense. The truth is she could still appear in 2014. Bleaney (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I put 2013–13/14. It looks weird but until we know, it's probably our best option. Twitter is ok if someone says "I am leaving", but Magowan didn't say "I am leaving", she just said "I was only brought in for one storyline". It's nothing to do with the source, it's to do with the words within that source, which didn't state that she was leaving. It's irrelevant now though so I don't know why we're still discussing it. –anemone projectors– 09:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Just thought about this - why not place '??' instead of '13/14'?? --#Soaper1234 (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Becuase we know it's either 2013 or 2014. –anemone projectors– 12:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe Sadie and Bella should have already been removed from the current list while the storyline involving them is still going on. DigitalSpy doesn't have a precise date for the departure of Kate Magowan either. Just "Early 2014". So there's nothing I can find to prove she's already left. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think she should have been removed either but she's not in any upcoming episodes according to the credits. ThisIsDanny (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Aleks Shirov

shouldn't he be listed as regular because he has a profile on the Eastenders website?--151.228.104.93 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No. He is not a "regular".— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 23:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What evidence is there to support the fact he is not regular? They have released promo pictures of him and the actor has done an interview with Digital Spy - with the article introducing him as a "new character". That's not usual practice for guest characters/semi regulars is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.100.56 (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Billy Mitchell, recurring?

Since when?? --82.11.180.235 (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Some gobshite will have done it trying to be clever. Probs the same gobshite who has just messed up the list now and put Carol and Phil in the wrong column field. Whoever it is needs a good slapping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.103.26 (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Rebecca Fowler

I believe she's only appeared in two episodes, should she be moved to Recurring cast instead of being a series regular?

I have changed Rebecca to recurring - the actor who plays her is under 16, and by convention on here characters played by under-16s are classed as recurring. This is because child actors are only allowed to appear sporadically due to child labour laws. - Bleaney (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Lucy

I'm concerned an edit war is starting regarding Lucy. Traditionally, when an character is killed off, they don't appear again. However in this case they seem to be finding any excuse to keep Lucy in the show. There are two clues to further appearances on the BBC website. One is the cast list here for 5 May and the other is Lucy Beale: Plotting the murder where Hetti makes a brief reference to appearing in a coffin. For these reasons we should keep her in the list of present characters for the time being. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You might as well talk to the wind that blew yesterday than try to make a point with the psychopaths running these articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.102.76 (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Christian Clarke and Libby Fox

There are published paparazzi photos of Belinda Owusu at the filming of Lucy Beale's funeral so Libby should not have been moved to past characters yet.

Also Partridge confirmed on Twitter that he is in more than one episode. When a fan tweeted that he was in one episode he tweeted them back to say 'incorrect'. Christian's character page still states that he will only be in one episode. I think people are too quick to jump on news when it was never said it would only be one episode and logic tells you it will be more than one. This is a major storyline they're not going to have the funeral dusted in a few scenes. I can only assume the edit in quesiton was made by someone with no knowledge of how soaps/EastEnders work. Standards are slipping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.98.46 (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Why has Libby been taken off the list when she is back for the funeral? I hope an apology is issued when the episodes go out and Libby is in them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.102.76 (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Takes a bow* right all along... :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.110.138 (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Page Vandalism

Have we gone back in time a year or something? I think someone's been vandalizing. Characters that have gone are back on the list. Characters who are in the show now have been removed. The cast changes have all already occurred.82.47.191.23 (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that too. I believe I've reverted back to the last safe version, but could you double check it, please. - JuneGloom Talk 15:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine. Its back to normal.82.47.191.23 (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Kurtis

shouldn't he be listed as an extra? and aside from winston, tracy and Marie, shouldn't the others be removed? not a clue who they are — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.249.197.85 (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No he should not be added. If he was played by anyone else no one would think anything of it, just because Winston is in Big Brother doesn't mean he should be added. The fact that he's in Big Brother proves he obviously doesn't have commitments at EastEnders, so won't be appearing for at least 10 weeks. There is no need for him to be on the list. ThisIsDanny (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Kurtis and Stephy should both be included as named extras, and the others shouldn't be removed. –anemone projectors– 09:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Tosh

Should we refer to Tosh as Fiona "Tosh" Mackintosh, as per the credits of the show, or as Tosh Mackintosh, which would more likely be the name she's better known by? Fatboy's credited as Arthur "Fatboy" Chubb but we only refer to him as Fatboy. Also, the few times she's been written about, people seem to be linking Tosh Mackintosh rather than Fiona "Tosh" Mackintosh. I don't think she's even been called Fiona on screen yet. Any thoughts? –anemone projectors– 12:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Regular or recurring?

I have noticed that there are many people on the characters list that haven't been in the show for a long time, or have made guest appearances. Therefore, I suggest the move of Cindy Williams, Kim Fox and perhaps Donna Yates to the recurring section. Also, is it correct to have Jane Beale, Stacey Slater and Ronnie Mitchell as present characters? All three have left, therefore I believe if they are due to return, they should be put in the returning section. --RachelRice (talk, contribs) 00:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Jane, Stacey and Ronnie are still contracted, it's just a little break so no they shouldn't be added to returning. Same with Kim, it's because Tameka was on maternity leave, she's back next month. Not sure about Cindy and Donna though. ThisIsDanny (talk) 06:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't "downgrade" characters temporarily, so Kim is a regular. I always thought Cindy and TJ should be listed as recurring anyway, because they are children. Donna is a regular character unless reliable sources say otherwise. Hopefully she'll get more scenes, like Pam has, but EastEnders currently seems to have a habit of using certain characters less often, while giving others prominence because of their storylines. Ronnie, Stacey and Jane are all technically present characters, they're just on a bit of a break. Same goes for Dexter, who is currently suspended. –anemone projectors– 07:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Nick Returning?

I saw this: http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbiz/492940/Nick-Cotton-shock-return-to-EastEnders-fake-funeral --82.11.180.235 (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The link is dead. They probably mistakenly posted something they weren't supposed to! Let's wait for something official at this point. But I hope it's true. –anemone projectors– 16:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep looks like they weren't meant to publish it until the end of the episode tonight! –anemone projectors– 21:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Although the reference we have doesn't actually say he's returning. I've not been online or watched the episode yet, is he actually confirmed as returning? If so, we need to use a source that says so. –anemone projectors– 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed :) http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a587062/eastenders-john-altman-returning-to-show-as-nick-cotton.html --82.11.180.235 (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff! –anemone projectors– 07:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ryan

Where is the confirmation that he is back permanently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.100.75 (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

Who keeps replacing the pictures because often they are not an improvement. I know screengrab quality is never perfect but it doesn't have to be grainy/cloudy either. The new ones of Carol and Nick look horrendous.

Take this to the actual character pages. This page has nothing to do with it. ThisIsDanny (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

And who rattled your cage? Several pages have been affected by this, so adding it to the talk page of the 'characters' list seems a sensible idea.

Thank god someone's had the good grace to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.32.54 (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello IP

@ThisIsDanny: was just trying to be helpful and point out where you would normally take up discussions to do with characters. Although I do appreciate that there have been a number of characters affected by this. In future, the better place to post discussions like this may be the EastEnders project page which you can find at WP:EE.

I know which editor has been doing this, although I'm not about to name them on this page. From what I can see, they have been acting in good faith and replacing old images with new images as they have thought that they needed replaced. However, I do agree with you that the new images, in the condition they're in, are not needed. Thank you for pointing out Nick, he must have slipped off my radar. I have now replaced his image with the one I found from 2009.

However, I have removed part of what you said about the editor as that was uncalled for, as I am an administrator I am about to permanently delete it from the public archives. Please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.

I was actually discussing the images before with @Gungadin: and @GSorby: and Gungadin I think suggested using promotional images. I will bring up a discussion about this at WP:EE shortly as it affects all EastEnders pages. Please feel free to join in the discussion there--5 albert square (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)]

Thanks for the information 5 Albert Square, I just don't like to see articles damaged in any way by unnecessary additions/changes. I regretfully wrote my original comment(s) from the gut having seen the appalling quality of the replacement images. :)

Previous actors in Present section

Isn't it a bit contrasting to have previous actors in the present character section? I was wondering if the column could simply be named "current actor", as previous actors are already shown on the characters' respective pages. Thanks --RachelRice (talk, contribs) 19:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really, no. It's a list of current characters, not current cast, so all actors should be listed for each role. (AP) 193.63.86.253 (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, though I just thought since the column notes "actor(s)", but lists previous actors as well as those current, it would be quite confusing for casual readers. It would be easier for the column to simply say current actors, and have previous actors listed on the characters' separate pages. --RachelRice (talk, contribs) 21:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 January 2015

This edit request to List of EastEnders characters has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to add PC Vanessa Jenkins to the list of recurring characters as she is appearing in future episodes. I would also like to thank whoever put this protection on here because the constant disruptive editing is beyond a joke.

Thanks Stardragon123 (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Added, thanks for that. With regards to the protection it was me that added that so you're welcome :)--5 albert square (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The protection ends on 14 March. Isn't that a little too far away? To my recollection it was only two editors that were being disruptive. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 14:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yvonne Cotton

Is she a regular? She has a page on the BBC website and has been appearing more frequently, but other than that there's not much to go by. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 05:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rachel! I would imagine she will stay in the series as long as her son. Her part is certainly more than casual at the moment and looks like continuing to be. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That seems probable. I guess we'll just have to wait for some sort of confirmation; I don't think she's been described by any source as either a recurring or regular character. Thanks :) — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 10:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As I've seen this, her cast card has been removed from the website. I think she has left.--Soaper1234 (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to update it to say that she's a former cast member. She still has a cast card on the BBC website but it lists a final appearance date. It doesn't do that for characters who are currently in it such as Nick, but it does for other characters such as Tiffany who have left--5 albert square (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you remove her from the recurring characters list then? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 14:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Bobby Beale

Is he still a recurring character or is he regular? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 18:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Syvlie Carter

I was just wondering whether Sylvie Carter has left as she was only supposed to be a guest character anyway. She is not scheduled to appear in any future episodes as of yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stardragon123 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sylvie will be returning. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 18:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2015

! style="width:140px;"|Departure Date

This edit request to List of EastEnders characters has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

109.78.170.192 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 17:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me! I think that was a bit mean of you, but please, bring my message back, please!

P.S. Bring it back!

From TheSimpsonsStuff (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@TheSimpsonsStuff: Sorry, I'm not sure what your message means. If you are referring to the edit request above, it was empty to begin with. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 20:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe they are requesting an extra column for the returning/departing section including the expected date of return/departure. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 01:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Character	Actor	Departure date	Ref(s)
Stan Carter	Timothy West	April 2015

Yeah, but please, bring my message back, whoever deleted it will be in big trouble!?! TheSimpsonsStuff (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC) P.S. Bring it back before I send in my banana monkeys!?!?!

By the way, why is Stan Carter leaving EastEnders Oh yeah, he's dying of cancer So, yeah, that's it from me. TheSimpsonsStuff (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC) P.S Bring my message back before I send in my banana monkeys to kill you!?!?!

Protected

The article has been protected from editing for a couple of days. Please try to sort out on the talk page and arrive at a consensus as to whether or not the disputed content should be included. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It's the same person involved in edit warring every single time to cause this page to be protected. I think action should be taken on the user, rather than the article. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 14:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Rachel. It's not like there's a number of users vandalising the page, it's just one. ThisIsDanny (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

What I'd like to see is some kind of discussion as to why the edits are vandalism, because it's not at all obvious to an outsider why the edit should be classed as such. It looks like a content dispute to me. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, User 1 added some content but the source contained was mere speculation. User 2 reverted it, and thus the cycle. Sadly, neither users decided it would be best to discuss it on the talk page and resulted to the dispute. User 2 has been involved in several edit warrings prior to this. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 19:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I was reverting the edits, as well as 5 albert square, who had explained in the edit summary that the source didn't say the characters were returning. The source was actually an image of a magazine cover which had question marks with "Kathy back with Grant?" and "Kat and Zoe reunited?" which doesn't state that they're actually returning, nor is it a reliable source. It was explained in the edit summary and was brought up on the user's talk page, yet they continued to re-add the information. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The user initially received a bunch of templated messages. As late as 16:19 on the 12th, he is remarking in an edit summary that "Somebody keeps changing the truth don't know why", so edit summaries alone are not enough to get your point across, and neither were these templated messages. It wasn't until 5 albert square added this message at 21:41 on March 12 that they received an actual message from a human being as to why the addition is not acceptable. It's also true that he re-posted the addition four more times after receiving that message. I have left a message on his talk page and will lift the protection now and we'll see what happens. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Rebecca Fowler

Contemplating moving Rebecca to the regular character section:

The actress is now 16 and almost out of education.
She has been appearing more frequently.
Both of her parents are on the square.
She has built relationships within the square with Liam and Cindy.

On the same subject, how are sources concerned regarding regular or recurring characters? What do we judge it on? How do we know who is which, like Vincent and Claudette, for example? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 21:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It's where they appear in the credits. Recurring usually appear at the end of the credits. For example in the episode airing 26 March she is still a recurring character. [4] ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Claudette should be moved to recurring as she is not a regular. ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't Vincent at the bottom, too? I thought it was because they were new characters, so I didn't change it. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 21:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Aunt Sal

Which psychopathic troll moved Aunt Sal to past characters less than six months after her last appearance? Has Phil left the programme? No so she could still appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.222.223 (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think 'psychopathic troll' is a bit over-the-top. Nevertheless, you have a point - given she's a long-term recurring character it would make sense to describe her as such. Smurfmeister (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Annie Palmer

Why is Annie Palmer on List of EastEnders characters, she left this show in 1999, I didn't see her, so that's why she's from the past! Please edit this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.187.188 (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Smurfmeister (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Kathy Beale

I've listed her as returning rather than current, as we have no information on when she'll be back on screen. Smurfmeister (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

She appeared in February, and is back in a couple of months like many sources have said so there is no need to add her to returning when she's already appeared. Plus when you add a character into returning you put a source in the Ref(s) section, not the years of which the character has appeared in ThisIsDanny (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It was just copied from the original HTML - there's nothing to stop you adding one of these 'many sources' you claim to have. A two-scene guest appearance two months ago ahead of a permanent return on an as yet unspecified date does NOT make her a current cast member. Smurfmeister (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

She has signed a contract with the show. Jacqueline Jossa is on maternity leave, she is not currently appearing but is still contracted and is still a current cast member. She will eventually return but there's no saying when. ThisIsDanny (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Maternity leave is a very different thing. The whole concept of maternity leave is that you don't actually depart from your job. Taylforth may have signed a contract but all that means is she's agreed to return - 'return' being the operative word. She hasn't done it yet. Smurfmeister (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Kathy already has returned, it doesn't matter in what capacity, we already know she is coming back full time. Generally returning characters are added to the present list after they have made their first reappearance, regardless of whether they're back as a regular immediately. Martin remained on the list between December 2014 and February 2015, no one knew when he'd be back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.182.241 (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The fact that I have reverted your edits, another 2 IP's have, and then a different IP has commented on it here suggests something. ThisIsDanny (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The header does not state "current characters", it states "regular characters". Taylforth has signed a regular contract with EastEnders. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 02:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

'Another 2 IP's' (sic). Says it all. What makes you think you know better than the BBC website - you know, the company that actually makes the show - which does NOT list Kathy as a regular? She's listed as a past character there and her faked death is referenced, meaning the site has been updated since her guest appearance. Smurfmeister (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Kathy has been on the present list for weeks and no one has had a problem with it only you Smurfmeister, stop trolling the EE articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.182.241 (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

'Trolling'? Don't make me laugh. Perhaps you think if you use teenage language like that no one will realise you're a sock puppet. I've reported your IP. Smurfmeister (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh please. I am a legitimate IP/user so you can report me all you want. Not everyone who dares to criticise your dubious editing decisions - which have been questioned by a few people - has something to hide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.182.241 (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If you're so 'legitimate' then sign in. Name one person who has disagreed with me who isn't pushing their own agenda. Smurfmeister (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A 'legitimate' IP! You know anyone can see your contributions, right? Nothing before this week and nothing on any other article! I've never seen a more obvious sockpuppet! Smurfmeister (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I am the IP of ThisIsDanny. I just added Kathy Beale back to present characters after another IP deleted her from returning. Feel free to look at my contributions, the other IP's are not sockpuppets, they're simply other people with the same opinions. 90.205.46.215 (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know how Wikipedia works. FYI my IP changes every time my router drops connection/reconnects (living in a rural area that happens often) or is rebooted by myself for whatever reason as I am a TalkTalk customer. I am interested in EastEnders and follow this page with interest. I honestly don't care what you think - it obviously makes you feel superior to try and discredit my comments - easier to think that I am a sock puppet than accept the fact yet another person has disagreed with your obsession with removing Kathy Beale - who has already returned to EastEnders - from this article.

Your IP is irrelevant. Mine also changes every time I log in. I log in from my phone, my laptop, my work laptop and internet cafes. My IP my change - my username doesn't. If you simply logged in no one could accuse you of being a sock puppet. Unless of course you don't have an account to log into? Smurfmeister (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an account with Wikipedia - you don't need one to edit articles and comment on their Talk Pages, IP users aren't inferior to those using accounts. And not having an account does not make me a Sock Puppet. Why the conspiracy theory? Just because others with IPs have debated this same issue with you does not mean there is anything suspicious at play here. Do you accuse every IP user who disagrees with you of this?

Every single page on Wikipedia encourages users to log in and sign their posts. I would question your assumption that IP users' contributions are of equal value to those of users with accounts. An account is free - why wouldn't you have one if you feel your contributions stand up to scrutiny? Smurfmeister (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have never been told to log in - signing posts is another matter. I don't need an account. The site is functional without one. I can edit articles and contribute to talk pages as a guest/IP user. I don't edit/comment enough to warrant getting an account. If you know how IP addresses work then why did you say I had contributed nothing to any other article/talk page prior to this week - as IPs change often, how do you know I have not contributed under previous IP addresses? FYI I have, although I don't do it enough to feel I need an actual Wikipedia identity. Reason you did not find anything else under this one is because I don't contribute often. Don't know what to say re: the IP/account snobbery as lots of valid information is inputted into Wikipedia by IP users. I think you're being completely OTT with all this 'agenda' business. It's an EastEnders character in a list, it's not politics. Does it really matter to you if Kathy is listed with the regular cast? People (with accounts, since it's so important to you) have explained to you what the general policy is regarding returning characters - that once they have made their first appearance they are added back to the list, regardless of whether they are featured prominently straight away or dripped back into the programme slowly. As well as Kathy, the show also took the latter approach with Martin, it was over 2 months from his initial reappearance in December until his return in February, nobody was fussed about his inclusion on the list. Prior to the last couple of days, Kathy's name had been on the list for ages and no one had an issue with it including those who do more work on the EE articles than yourself. I shouldn't have described you as a troll but it is as though you're being difficult for the sake of it. 92.18.182.241 (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

If you so rarely contribute to Wikipedia I don't really understand why you're so bothered about this. You seem to be suggesting that two or more people both being wrong somehow makes them right. It doesn't. Two valid sources, including the BBC website, both make it clear that Kathy is not a current character. Don't you find it just slightly arrogant that Wikipedia editors are deciding they know better than the company that makes the show? The only non-IP user to agree with ThisIsDanny is RachelRice, who incorrectly reverted one of my edits on an EE page the other day and got stroppy when I reverted and pointed out she was acting against policy for soap articles. Coincidence? Smurfmeister (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it must be a coincidence as I am not RachelRice. Will you please stop with the insinuations and just accept I am not a sock puppet / operating multiple identities. I don't have an agenda against you and have already said I shouldn't have referred to you as a troll. Not interested in the official EE website, it's not run by people who work on the show, rather another department of the BBC and I have seen errors on their cast page in the past, characters missing from relevant sections etc. Plus, they might have a different policy regarding returning characters to Wikipedia, where it has always been common, for EastEnders at least, to add any returning regular character back to the list following their first appearance. It's not that I'm 'so bothered' I'm just saying what the standard approach has always been. I haven't seen or heard of a policy on this matter, is there one that supports your view? Because over a long period of time the approach I described above has been the norm with many many characters over the years, most recently Martin. Are you a regular follower of this article? If so, how have you missed the previous occasions that this has been done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.182.241 (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You've misunderstood - I'm not suggesting you're RachelRice. I'm suggesting her motivation to disagree with my edits may have more to do with sour grapes than any policy. Smurfmeister (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

And you think it's the same for me? Babe, I don't even know you. Not going to have sour grapes against someone I don't know, was just telling you what the standard approach has always been and I'm miffed that - if you feel that approach is wrong - why you have not intervened sooner, unless you are not a regular on the EE articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.182.241 (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Smurfmiester, you're getting very personal. I reverted your edits once, simply because the edit you made warranted a revert. It's not because I "didn't agree with it", it's not "sour grapes" and I'm not "going against any policy", I'm being factual. Even if I was sour about such a petty thing like this, I wouldn't create a sock puppet just to prove a point. You're right, Kathy isn't a current character – the BBC website reflects that – but she has signed a regular contract with the show. You could argue that Lauren Branning is a returning character, but she has a regular contract with the show and that's why she's in the "regular characters" section. This article works from a production point of view, not the show itself. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 10:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you're suddenly complaining about me being "personal" three days after your last comment when I haven't made any further comment since. What's changed? For the record, it was ThisIsDanny I suggested might have used a sock puppet, not you.

The reason I haven't made any comment/complaint about the way this has been done before is a) I didn't know and b) it's a rare situation - there's not a lot of precedent for it. There is no policy on the WP:SOAPS page about this, nor is anything mentioned on the talk page. It's a little arrogant to assume that every editor will know "the way it's always been done" or agree with this method. It always concerns me that the nameless one thinks it's okay to simply declare he's "not interested in the BBC website" - what better source about a BBC show could there be? Check it, it's up to date.

The example given above of how Martin Fowler's return was treated has some similarities, but also crucial differences. Yes, Martin's initial appearances were widely spaced, but it was never suggested he'd gone but would be back "at some point". With Kathy, she made one short guest appearance and then the BBC confirmed she would be back full time "later in the year". Nothing more concrete than that has been said since. A useful source from the Metro was provided by another user, but has unfortunately been deleted due to those of you who who disagree with me blindly reverting. This source - dated 20 March from memory - stated that Gillian Taylforth isn't even filming yet and that the BBC have yet to confirm when she'll be back. If, as you say, the article works "from a production point of view", surely the fact that the actress isn't currently involved in said production means she's not a regular?

The most similar example I can think of is Tracy Barlow's return to Coronation Street in 2010. She appeared in a short-term storyline in May of that year, at which point it was confirmed she would later return permanently. She didn't until the Christmas Eve episode. It would have been nonsensical to have her listed as a current cast member for all that time. Given that, unless new information has been released, all we have is "later in the year" it could be up to eight months before we see Kathy again. That's not a very regular regular, is it?

I'm hoping my reasoning will sink in, although sadly in my experience once people get the bit between their teeth they beligerently defend their position despite the evidence. Smurfmeister (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The difference between Kathy Beale and Tracy Barlow is that there was no confirmation that she would even be returning before Kathy appeared on screen, she just returned and then it was announced immediately afterwards she would be back on screens again soon, but obviously had already made her return. Tracy departed in May then it wasn't announced until July that she would be back. Kathy never returned, departed and is set to return again. ThisIsDanny (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, but I can't be bothered arguing anymore. You've obviously decided you're right and that's that. Hopefully this will at least mean I don't have to put up with being described as a troll for daring to disagree. Smurfmeister (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw but I did take back my troll comment Smurfmeister. Your continued accusations that I am a sock puppet of ThisisDanny, however, are equally as irksome - he even commented from his IP to disprove it (cue 'he could've used a proxy' heaven forbid you could just accept the truth and stop stirring the pot). If there's no policy on this then surely the default option is to continue with what has been the norm rather than suddenly - without a consensus being reached - change things? Why should we adhere to your (one person) way of doing things, when countless editors (account and IP) have been operating on the basis outlined above. It's been the case for years and has affected more characters than just Martin and Kathy. True there isn't much precedent but it has happened with others. What about Stacey and Jane? Both appeared for short stints in early 2014 and we were told like Kathy they would be back later on... both remained in the present list. You say why am I so bothered as an infrequent contributor, well why are you so bothered if you read this page so rarely you hadn't noticed the issue before. he BBC website has been incorrect before. However, I think in this case it's just they have a different way of doing things.

But I seriously don't want to keep going round in circles. You're really after me so I know I'll get another reply back of an inflammatory nature, probably implying - again - I am a sock puppet/TID (something to do with my reaction as if I'm not entitled to defend myself - whether I am commenting from an identity I 'own' or not, at present this IP is attributed to comments I make so I have a right to take exception with the false accusation) but I'm just going to let it go over my head because I don't think any headway can be made here. Myself and TID know the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.165.27 (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You seem to think 'taking it back' makes it okay you said it in the first place.

The reason I've argued my point is because I believe I'm right. Your argument that others, maybe many others (or at least comments posting from other IPs) disagree with me is meaningless. Two people being wrong doesn't translate to them being right by the virtue of consesus - it just means two people are wrong. Smurfmeister (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make it okay, that's why I took it back, but the more you go on the more I wonder whether it was a justified remark in the first place.... Two wrongs don't make a right and you have falsely labeled me of something - ironically something you have been accused of yourself (unfairly, I presume?) so you should know how it feels.

Perhaps the issue has not been discussed much but more than two people have been following this way of doing things when it comes to the edits/article content. I have only ever seen you edit to the contrary and oppose it on here. However, I see Kathy is now in the correct list so I have nothing further to add on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.165.27 (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Whoopee bloody do. Smurfmeister (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Four months on and Kathy has been in three episodes since. I wish my 'regular' work was so easy. Smurfmeister (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2015

This edit request to List of EastEnders characters has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s2/eastenders/news/a639977/lock-stock-and-two-smoking-barrels-actor-films-with-eastenders.html#~p9z0jFksNlBIZc - needs to be added to future characters in Eastenders 86.180.171.63 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Confusing

Karin Smart is listed as recurring but also appears on the Past Characters section. Cora is missing from both lists. I have no idea whether or not to edit this myself as it might be considered vandalism. --82.11.180.235 (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: someone's now changed Donna's name to Yates - Hubbard which doesn't exist, but I'm not sure if I should edit THAT either --82.11.180.235 (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Karin Smart is a guest character and will be returning for another short stint in the near future. She should be removed from the past characters page. Cora is a regular character, and has taken a temporary break from the show. She should be in the present section. Donna's surname is Yates - this is vandalism, and I will change it. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 21:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Can someone protect this page?

Several IPs over the past few days have been contributing unnecessary edits to the page even though their edits have rightfully been reverted in the past. Could we protect the page for just autoconfirmed users, please? — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 07:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, for 3 months. –anemone projectors– 14:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 characters

Can we have a 2015 page please? Ronnie and Charlie's baby was born and also I think one of the doctors may have been a new character. Thanks. (AP) 193.63.86.253 (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Not necessary as of yet. It would be deleted within a week due to the lack of information. --RachelRice (talk, contribs) 01:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

We've had worse pages. Anyway, Andrew Sachs needs to be added to this list, I think. 193.63.86.253 (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't know anything about him, not even his character's name, so let's just wait. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 01:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you add the actor as upcoming and put TBA as a character name? That's what we would normally do. Thanks.

193.63.86.253 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no reliable source that Andrew Sachs is joining the show, only "reports" or accusations. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 15:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed this, AP was that really you? There's a 2015 page now, although it's not brilliant. - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I imagine you mean 'rumours' rather than 'accusations'. I can't really see 'Andrew Sachs accused of joining EastEnders' as a headline. Smurfmeister (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it was me! I was pleased to come back and see the 2015 page all up to date after posting this :-) –anemone projectors– 15:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2015

This edit request to List of EastEnders characters has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ollie Walters - Tony O'Callaghan - returning. 86.191.20.79 (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Beth Williams

Gone or not gone? On-screen events would suggest she won't be seen again. But she's been taken out of past and re-classified as present. –anemone projectors– 12:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, it looked like an exit to me. Is she mentioned/credited in the upcoming episodes? - JuneGloom07 Talk 14:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

As a baby, she's never credited anyway. But Cindy isn't either, it seems to be mostly focussing on Shabnam at the moment. –anemone projectors– 15:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen the episode but I'd be surprised if Ian and Jane gave up. Maybe the storyline is taking a break for a few weeks? Could we leave her as "present" for a few weeks and then assume if no mention is made of her that she has gone? I would have thought that some sort of reference would be made over the next few weeks which may give clarification on what they've done.--5 albert square (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe leave her as present for now, and see how it goes. We could apply our "one-year rule" as we do for other child characters who have left but still come back now and then, like Oscar Branning. –anemone projectors– 18:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Cameron Bryant

Should Cameron Bryant still be here? I know its not been a year since his last appearance but his storylines really do seem to have run their course, and although he's a cop and could return in that capacity, his appearance seemed very attached to Emma Summerhayes and theres no indication he will return, even in connection with Max who is taking an extended break soon. Bleaney (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

He's in it next week along with Keeble, so yes he should (see 16/07/2015 and 17/07/2015). –anemone projectors– 09:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Nikki Spraggan

Is Nikki Spraggan a regular character now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyt 123 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

She left ages ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.74.168 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 22 November 2015‎ (UTC)

Recurring getting huge again...

Are some of the recurrers due (or even likely) to appear again soon? I'm thinking in particular about Arsim Kelmendi, Jonathan Malnet and Jade Green? Bleaney (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Jade yes. ThisIsDanny (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

As Jonathan is Jade's father I'd say it's also possible that he will appear again soon. Arsim I'd say probably not.--5 albert square (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Table size doesn't matter, we should follow the one-year rule. A good reason for this is that we all assumed that Fatima wouldn't reappear so we got rid of her, and then she returned again, therefore the information was wrong. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 06:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Jade is confirmed as appearing (on location photos of the actress with Rakhee Thakrar were released last week), so Jonathan is likely. Arsim is likely as there's a trial and he's a witness. RachelRice is correct though, table size doesn't matter and Fatima is a good example. I think Lee's boss Adam Wallace should be added too, he's coming back for another three episodes at least. –anemone projectors– 07:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added PC Evans to the list as his 11th episode since 2011 is coming up, and I think we should apply the rule to him. I was still wondering about Adam Wallace too - depending on what happens to Lee next? –anemone projectors– 08:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any issue with Adam being added. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 08:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Kamil Masood

Kamil's page says he appeared in 2014 but I can't find evidence for this, I have his last appearance on 10 December 2013, which was on a Skype chat. Did he appear in 2014? If not, he's 9 months overdue for removal from this list. –anemone projectors– 07:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I definitely don't remember seeing him in 2014. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 19:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Lauren's son Louie

I haven't added a last name because it hasn't been explicitely stated so would be wrong for us to assume one. I thought I'd ask this here as it's a central place, some people have been adding Louie to infoboxes and others removing him because of the "haven't met" rule. From preview photos we know Jane, Carol and Abi are going to meet Louie when he's born, so I was going to say it's ok to add him to Carol and Abi's infoboxes, but as Louie is a baby and is only making a short appearance at the moment, is it really going to be a notable connection? Babies don't often have their own storylines, and it's not just about "meeting" but about being notable and a part of a storyline - for now this looks like just a Lauren storyline, not a Louie/Carol/Abi/anyone else one. It's the same reason Libby hasn't been linked with Pearl - Pearl is a baby and isn't having her own storylines now. Does everyone agree? (pinging User:Grangehilllover and User:WikiEditor73 as involved editors). –anemone projectors– 09:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we should just have Lauren and Peter until he makes his first appearance. I imagine Jane/Carol/Abi would want to meet their relative, but since we don't know the circumstances of the birth, we should wait a bit. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 09:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Only just seen the spoiler article - I guess it's ok to add Abi/Carol/Jane based on this because they have direct contact with Louie. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 09:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Not Jane because she's not related, but for Abi and Carol, can we say it's a notable connection until we know the circumstances? –anemone projectors– 09:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops forgot she wasn't related! Yes I think Abi & Carol can be noted. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 17:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC).

Hi I think we should add a surname since it has been confirmed on digital spy that the name will be louie beale plus jacqueline jossa has favourited a tweet on twitter whereby a fan has said they can't wait for her character to give birth to louie beale. Furthermore it is obvious she will name louie after his fathers family name.

Digital Spy doesn't confirm anything, and a favourited tweet is not enough evidence I'm afraid. And not necessarily, just this year we've had Matthew Mitchell-Cotton and Pearl Fox-Hubbard. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC).

Well you wait and see the baby will be named with beale . Lots of people have been referring to the baby as louie beale. It won't do any harm to leave it as beale until it's confirmed on tv as this is most likely will be the outcome. Furhermore peter should have louie in his wiki page as he is the confirmed father and incomplete parental information on a information page about a fictional character looks odd. Adding louie in the page will not cause ha not is it incorrect info seeing lots of other characters whose parents / spouse etc have not appeared still have complete family information. The wiki pages are not about whose currently in the show but rather about the link with the shows history past and present. So stop editing out and deleting info.

I'm sorry, what? ThisIsDanny (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Everyone is assuming the baby will be called Beale without a reliable source to back it up. This is original research. Therefore, we cannot add any surname until we see an official BBC source call him Louie Beale, no matter how obvious it seems to everyone. –anemone projectors– 07:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

why can't we add information about Louie's family since the page on louie is about the characters background including who the characters is related to. It just seems stupid since lots of other characters have family names included even though the families are not on the show? Should the page about louie not be about the character himself and not about who he interacts with. Just because he won't interact with his grandma tanya since the character isn't on the show it doesn't take away the fact she is still biologically his grandma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystal30003 (talk • contribs)

Because to add all his family is to clutter up infoboxes with unnecessary in-universe information. The family section should only include the most important family members, which we have long established to be the direct relatives (father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son and daughter), plus any other relatives that form a notable part of the character's storyline. As we don't yet know what Louie's storyline will be, we only add Lauren and Peter - the links to the Branning and Beale family articles are provided in the infobox so you can see how he is related to other characters without the need for clutter. You say "lots of other characters have family names included even though the families are not on the show" - can you give me examples of where this is the case so it can be rectified? Thanks. –anemone projectors– 13:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say that this week's Inside Soap refers to the baby as Branning-Beale. - JuneGloom07 Talk 15:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

They say "baby Branning-Beale has decided it's time to say hello" or words like that. Not an official name - and I'm thinking that as Peter's not returning and Lauren is, they may not marry, and in that case stay Branning and may want Louie to have the same name. So we'll just have to wait and see (or maybe we could put "Branning-Beale" until we know for sure???). –anemone projectors– 16:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we add Abi and Carol as Louie's family because they will help Lauren to give birth in hospital? 149.254.250.241, 10 September 2015; 7:12pm

Abi has been added because she has doted on Louie, but we didn't see the birth, so that's not a reason. Carol's been there, but Louie hasn't had a storyline of his own yet, so his relationships aren't really notable to him yet. –anemone projectors– 10:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Lol you just bend the rules however you want to fit your own agenda. And the surname thing is ridiculous. It's clearly going to be Beale. 86.136.76.113 (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You have a Crystal ball? Stephenb (Talk) 07:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It could be Beale. It could be Branning. It could be Branning-Beale or Beale-Branning. That's why I created redirects for them all, but we don't know, as we didn't see a birth certificate or even a passport (I'm wondering if Lauren registered the both and applied for Louie's passport at all!). Like I said earlier, Lauren will most likely return next year without Peter, so it's not a given that it will be Beale. Even if legally it should be Beale, this is fiction so it's up to the writers and producers. Realiable sources are needed, and there haven't been any. –anemone projectors– 21:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Ben Champniss as Shrimpy

I've discovered that Champniss has been an EastEnders extra for many years, appearing in background scenes in the Vic, the café, R&R, etc. However, the character "Shrimpy" didn't really exist until the storyline where Spring Lane and Bridge Street markets are merged, and he would have just been some guy living in Walford along with all the other myriad extras. I thought this might be worth noting, at least here. –anemone projectors– 08:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Elaine Peacock

I don't see how Elaine is still reccurring. Since October, she's been living in the square! How is she reccurring? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.74.168 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 22 November 2015‎ (UTC)

Living on the Square isn't what makes someone a regular character. Reliable sources that say she is a regular character are. Anemone Projectors (Peter O'Connor) 10:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

However, I do think she's become a regular since she was given a 3-month contract. Anemone Projectors (Peter O'Connor) 23:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Craig the cat

Should Carmel's cat really be included? There's no indication at the moment that it wasn't just a one-off, and most pets aren't included anyway. The only ones that have been are those with articles/sections are, which are Wellard, Roly, Willy, Lady Di, Tramp, and Wellard 2, and no others. There have been many animals in EastEnders over the years, so why is Craig so special? Anemone Projectors 23:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Malnet

Shall we remove him from the list? I thought he should appear as long as Jade is, but since Shirley and Buster now have custody of Jade, Jonathan is no longer fostering her and probably will not appear again. Anemone Projectors 14:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

IP removed him without discussion. Anemone Projectors 12:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Glenda returning

Glenda Mitchell is returning in Christmas week according to Radio Times which is a highly reliable source. Search 'Glynis Barber' on Twitter and you can see scans and pictures of the cast list on page 120 - it's in the bumper Christmas edition of RT. 86.156.1.165 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If she was returning it would be on the internet somewhere as well as in the Radio Times. There is nothing on the internet. I've looked at her official Twitter page for this so called retweet of the Radio Times and it has nothing to do with EastEnders or Glenda, it's showing she starred in Dempsey and Makepeace. ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I found one tweet with the image in question, here. Cast lists can't always be trusted, I once used one to say a character was appearing when they weren't, they were only listed because they were mentioned. In this case I think we should wait for something online. The image doesn't show which episode it is, and some credits are available on the BBC, and they don't show Glenda. She probably is returning, but I think we should wait. Anemone Projectors 22:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I think we need to wait until something is online. ThisIsDanny (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Baby Arthur's name

Is it Arthur Fowler or Arthur Fowler Jnr? If just Arthur Fowler, we shouldn't use the Jnr suffix anywhere. If Jnr, we don't need the (2015 character) redirect. Also, I anticipate a name change rather soon, as Stacey already said she wants him to be a Branning and we know Martin isn't the father so he shouldn't be a Fowler anyway (I'm not discussing that, just saying to expect it!) Anemone Projectors 17:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe it's just Arthur Fowler. I haven't heard or read anything about a "Jnr". But, shouldn't you only use the term if the child shares the same name with a parent, not a grandparent?. - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, so we need to get rid of all the Jnrs. Anemone Projectors 22:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there was only one to do - the characters template :-) Anemone Projectors 22:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Libby Fox

Sick of seeing Libby in the returning section, then added to present for 2 episodes then removed from the list again, only to be added into returning a few weeks later. Can't we keep her on the list and assume she's recurring or something? ThisIsDanny (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, put the one-year rule on her as well as Jean Slater and Ollie Walters. We agreed to do it with Jean and Ollie in the above section but it didn't stick. Anemone Projectors 19:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the mix up earlier, I forgot about the one-year rule. Does this apply for Mo Harris as well? SamLaws81101 (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to apply it to Mo as well, yes. Anemone Projectors 11:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

^ "EastEnders Episode 4690". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 1 August 2013. Retrieved 1 August 2013.

[1] "EastEnders Episode 4690". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 1 August 2013. Retrieved 1 August 2013.

[1]