Talk:Lucy Beale

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

Detail[edit]

This page is far too detailed. Not everthing that happens to Lucy has to be included in such detail. Ive started to reduce.Gungadin♦ 22:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the characters with current storylines are getting out of hand with poorly written and unneccesary stuff being added on a daily basis. We really need to keep an eye on all additions and clean them up straight away. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 12:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

first appearance[edit]

peter and lucy were born on december 9th, however didn't appear until december 16th. their birth was never seen on screen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eefan (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and made the change for you. anemoneIprojectors 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the page is only semi-protected, so you should be able to edit it yourself. Just make sure you leave an edit summary to explain your edit if you want to change something that might be questioned. anemoneIprojectors 23:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

No idea who posted the above, but here's another source that may or may not be relevant, but if it is, I think Lucy's is the most relevant article for it. [5] It's about the woman in the birthing video she was shown. AnemoneProjectors 18:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This source might be better. AnemoneProjectors 21:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been added now so for anyone who decides to look here for sources, you can ignore the birthing DVD source :) AnemoneProjectors 22:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Departure?[edit]

Not sure how we should handle this one right now. Digital Spy have picked up on it, but they're just quoting the Daily Star, which is hardly the most reliable source going. Frickative 09:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did originally put something in that quoted Digital Spy but I've taken it out now as I didn't realise they'd got their info from the Daily Star. One of my friends runs an EastEnders website, he's waiting on the BBC to get back to him about this, once they have he'll put it up on his website and we could use that as a source.
However if it is true, I'm thinking that we should leave the classification as being present regular. If you look at the news on DS it says that the actress has been axed, it doesn't say the character is axed. That to me means that they could decide to recast the part. Anyone else agree? --5 albert square (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. Even in the statement by the supposed spokesperson it only mentions Melissa, not Lucy. Given how many times the role has been recast already, it's entirely possible, so yes, unless they release a statement saying Lucy is being written out, I agree. Frickative 10:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've added a hidden comment to reflect this as someone kept changing it earlier and when I asked on their talk page to provide a reference to support that Lucy was going, they didn't reply. I've left it reading Melissa Suffield 2004-10 because at the minute it is looking as if the article is true, as apparently Kris Green has posted on Twitter stating that it is. I suspect that he is waiting on the same email/voicemail from the BBC that my friends waiting on before he confirms anything on Digital Spy. So if it is a recast, that will be Lucy Beale mk 4? God she's had nearly as many head transplants as her dad has had wives! :p --5 albert square (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://twitter.com/krisgreen65/status/15035130713 :( AnemoneProjectors 11:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A recast is better than nothing but it won't be the same, Suffield made Lucy who she is. That tweet came through as I was typing a reply :) AnemoneProjectors 11:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit, was still kinda hoping it wasn't true :(. I'm thinking though given the amount of teens that have been axed recently ie Lauren, Chelsea, Libby, Ben etc that they will simply recast the part --5 albert square (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kris Green just said no idea if she's being recast so we'll just have to wait and see. Chelsea's not a teen by the way, she doesn't count :) I don't think of Libby as one either! AnemoneProjectors 11:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked at Chelsea's age, I've no idea why I thought she was a teen! I think it's just because she looks about 18, yeah I'll go with that. Libby is still (just) a teen though she acts as if she's a lot older lol! --5 albert square (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well Chelsea's older than Libby and Libby is I'm guessing 19. Oh, she's 18? Fair enough. How old is Darren? He doesn't act like a teen these days either. Billie's not a teen either but they're treating him as one. Anyway, this is totally off topic! AnemoneProjectors 12:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's it confirmed, Melissa's off but no word yet on Lucy. I'm still hoping that they re-cast.--5 albert square (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The EastEnders website has the headline "Lucy's leaving" but the article still only mentions Melissa leaving, not Lucy, so I still don't think this is a good enough source. If they recast, it's likely that Lucy will go away for a while so it doesn't look too strange, but a character break doesn't mean a departure and a return. AnemoneProjectors 12:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does though really, the title of the article says it all - Lucy is leaving. I think we have to see this as confirmation of the departure of Lucy, even if it is rtemporary. After all, characters like Tanya who 'left' due to maternity leave were classed as departing characters. Surely Lucy is as well (even if they do recast). Bleaney (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a headline. Headlines can say anything. It's not confirmation because the article only says Melissa is leaving. AnemoneProjectors 14:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have to get our facts right. We can just wait until it is 100% confirmed. The headline does not confirm it. We don't have to add anything about the character leaving until we know for absolute certain. Be patient. This might not be for several months. AnemoneProjectors 14:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find your argument quite arbitrary. The fact is this - The actress who is plays Lucy is leaving. As you have said previously, if they do recast the part it is highly likely that the character will have a 'break' of at least a few weeks or months before returning. We all doubt that the BBC will replace Lucy straight away (like they do in Austarlian & US soaps), so I think it is now appropriate to list Lucy as a departing character. As I have said previously, characters like Tania and Max who left temporarily were classed as departing characters long before they actually left, even though we knew that they would be returning. I see Lucy as in the same situation. Bleaney (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think AP is in a bit of denial... :) After all, the reference used for Chelsea's departure [6] actually only says that Tiana Benjamin has quit, it says nothing about whether the part has been recast, so perhaps she shouldn't be listed either :) Stephenb (Talk) 15:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not in denial. That source for Chelsea's departure says "Details of Chelsea's exit story have yet to be finalised" which means Chelsea is leaving, not just Tiana Benjamin. Also, the official website says "Chelsea Fox is set to leave Walford later this year". Everyone has been very careful here (with the exception of one headline, which is not good enough as a source as I have already said) to not say that Lucy is leaving, just Suffield. How long was Peter Beale off screen before his last recast? Jake Wood's paternity leave didn't warrent Max being listed as a departing/returning character, but Jo Joyner has been off-screen for a long time, at the time we heard she wouldn't be back until late this year, which was almost a year off-screen. Before we heard she would be gone that long, we didn't list her as a departing character at all. If Lucy's being recast, the character isn't leaving. Suspensions and short-term leave don't count as a character leaving. AnemoneProjectors 15:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point StephenB. In reality, who and who doesn't appear on Wikipedia's List of EastEnders characters whatever their category, is often down to convention rather than absolute certainty. For example, how do we KNOW that characters like Sal Martin ot Reverend Stevens are 'Recurring characters'? They may never appear in EE again? We have no official confirmation that they are. However, convention dictates that they are very likely to appear again, so they are included in the list.
Also, with the characters of Tania and Max, the only reason these characters left EE was because the actors were taking maternity and paternity leave. The actors never left EE, their contracts were not terminated, they were always going to return. So in reality, those charcters should have stayed in the main cast list. However, convention dictated that because the characters were going to disappear for a lengthy period, they would be classed as departing characters, then returning charcters (immediately after they disappeared).
It would be nice if we always had absolute certainty about the comings and goings of cast and characters in EastEnders, but we dont. It is convention that has to fill these gaps sometimes, and convention dictates that as the actress who plays Lucy is leaving, then the Lucy is very likely to leave too (even if it is temporary or short term to allow for a re-cast). If we leave no mention of Lucy's status on List of EastEnders characters, then the page will be constantly edited by well-meaning editors who are not necessarily wrong.Bleaney (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the recurring characters! I've moved a lot of characters that were listed as recurring to the past list because we didn't know. I don't have a problem with moving Sal and Stevens to past until we hear they are appearing again. But this is a totally different discussion, we are talking about Lucy, not "other stuff". AnemoneProjectors 15:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that we didn't list Masood as departing/returning when Nitin Ganatra took paternity leave, and we didn't list Dot as departing/returning when June Brown left to be in Calendar Girls, and we haven't listed Phil as departing even though Steve McFadden is taking time off to star in pantomime later this year, because it's just short term. Again, not Lucy, but goes to show that short-term departures don't count. AnemoneProjectors 16:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is a discussion about Lucy, but the recurring characters prove my point that the List of EastEnders characters has to sometimes rely on convention rather than absolute certainty when listing the status of EE characters. You yourself AP have siad that it is highly likely that the BBC will either finish the character completely or recast Lucy (with a gap). I dont see why we are being so rigid on Lucy's status, when we are more fluid with other characters? Bleaney (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Following Wikipedia policy should be more important than editor-originated convention. The topic at hand should be whether the BBC headline is sufficient enough verification that Lucy is being written out of the series. Given that the EastEnders website sometimes uses actors and characters interchangeably in headlines (example 'You interview the new Mitchell' is clearly about Bergin being interviewed, not Danny Mitchell) I lean towards needing additional confirmation. Frickative 16:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Details of Chelsea's departure" could just be as much an inference (by the writer) as the headline "Lucy's Leaving" - that was the point I was making. But I think it's much more likely that it is an implication in both cases. Stephenb (Talk) 16:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bleaney, if it's a recast with a gap, we can't list Lucy as departing because a recast isn't a character departure. If it's not a recast then we need a source. Either way, we can't say Lucy is departing because we don't know what is going on. We just have to wait. Stephenb, the BBC source confirms without doubt Chelsea is leaving, not just Tiana. AnemoneProjectors 16:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, equally, if it IS to be recast, you also need a source. If the character isn't being recast, when should we remove her from the list of characters? The BBC aren't going to announce the part isn't going to be recast, they'll just write the character out. Should we wait until then, or wait further in case they do recast in the end? In which case, we'll have a character in the list played by no-one! And why would they recast this character, and not any other? Basically, she's gone, and you're in denial too  :) :) Stephenb (Talk) 16:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and AP... the official site only says Tiana is leaving: [7], although the headline does say "Cheerio Chelsea" (OK and a bit of inference in the text maybe). I agree, double standards! Stephenb (Talk) 16:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And in the mean time, we will be constantly reverting good faith edits from well-meaning editors over quite an obscure and technical need for clarification from the BBC, which is seemingly not needed for other character listings. This seems full of double standards to me Bleaney (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As another comparison: [8] - nowhere does it explicitly say Jean is leaving. So perhaps she is being "recast"..? Stephenb (Talk) 17:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think its fair to say that the two examples of Chelsea & Jean mean that Lucy not being included in the departing characters list is rediculous. Either that or we have to majorly modify the List of EastEnders characters. Bleaney (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple other sources which state Jean is leaving, and I would hardly call WP:V, one of Wikipedia's core policies, an "obscure and technical need for clarification". Discussion regarding improving the 'List of EastEnders characters' should be held on that talk page. Frickative 17:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec - reply to Stephenb) Yes we don't have a source either way. We need one. If we don't hear about a recast or a definite departure for the character before Melissa's last appearance, then we remove her after her last appearance. Chelsea: the official site says "EastEnders' beautiful beautician Chelsea Fox is set to leave Walford later this year". That's not "a bit of inference". With Melissa, everyone (not just the BBC) is being careful not to say the character is leaving, only the actress. This isn't the case with any of the other announced departures. AnemoneProjectors 17:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources all assume that Jean is leaving from the official BBC announcement (Just like we have done on here). If the rule is that we need to have official BBC confirmation for a character to be included in the Departing list, then Jean doesn't have it and neither does Chelsea. And Frickative, I don't actually want to change radically the format of List of EastEnders characters, I just feel Lucy should be included as a departer on it! Bleaney (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said we need official BBC confirmation. We just need reliable source confirmation. Kris Green from Digital Spy doesn't know, so how can we know? He has a very close working relationship with the EastEnders production team. AnemoneProjectors 17:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] As WP:V states, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Reliable sources have published that Jean is leaving, ergo it is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, even if ultimately (however unlikely that may be) it turns out to be untrue. A single source has so far stated that Lucy is leaving, and its reliability has been called into question. I would ideally like at least one more reliable source to concur before making changes - that way even if it is wrong and she gets recast in the end, at least policy was followed. My interpretation of policy is that it wouldn't have to be absolute official BBC confirmation - an editorial piece would suffice, as long as it's not something obviously dodgy like "An unnamed source told the News of the World..." Frickative 17:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stephenb can I just point out that the reference you've given there for Jean says at the bottom "No details of the pair's exit have been announced so far, but we'll keep you up-to-date as what is sure to be an epic storyline unfolds." That to me indicates that the BBC are thinking up an exit storyline(s) for Jean and Stacey which means that the characters are leaving. Not disappearing off into the back of beyonder for a few months, leaving for good and the actresses both chose to leave. As I'm sure you can appreciate with Melissa it is totally different, the actress was axed, EastEnders/BBC's choice not hers, as they terminated her contract, with Stacey, Jean and even Chelsea it was the other way around. Given that they've already axed what seems like half the teenagers they may just recast the part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lucy_Beale&action=edit&section=4

The BBC EastEnders site says "Lucy's Leaving", it may well just say that because they've announced it on the EastEnders website. Because they've put it on the soaps part of the website they've called her by the character name instead of the actress name. You may well find that if they'd put the same news on the main BBC website that they would have had the headline "Melissa Suffield Axed"! --5 albert square (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

(Reset indent) The point of my posts about the BBC sites was that the headlines are all about the character ("Lucy's leaving" and "Chelsea Fox is Set to Leave") but you're all taking one to mean that the character is leaving, and the other to say that at the moment we only know the actress is leaving. Yes, there are multiple other citable ones for Jean (yes, I know she's leaving, I'm not claiming she's being recast, don't be silly... (ahem) :) ), but I was specifically using the BBC site as another example where there are double standards as to reliable citability in these cases - that it doesn't always specifically say the character is leaving when, clearly, he/she is. As another example, Peggy is leaving, although the BBC site [9] doesn't explicitly say this, just that Barbara Windsor is leaving (and who's to say they won't recast with her, they've done it before!). Stephenb (Talk) 08:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we know that Peggy is leaving from other sources and again, a simple headline isn't good enough - they often refer to actors by the characters' names as Frickative already mentioned. The official site's news stories tend to be vague anyway, they often give little background information that other news sites give, and it's often padded out with quotes and character background. The point is, with Melissa Suffield, nobody at all has said Lucy is leaving, they're being very careful about it. AnemoneProjectors 09:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing there aren't other sources for the others, but if we're going to say the BBC site is reliable to say "character X is leaving" in any citations then the headline "Lucy's Leaving" should be enough in this case too, otherwise we shouldn't be relying on it as a reliable source. Nobody has said Lucy is staying either, it's *very* unlikely after 6 years with such a recognisable actress that they'd recast immediately, and to say they might recast at all is surely OR or pure supposition! The only information from a source that we've previously treated as reliable is the BBC site is that "Lucy's Leaving". If you have other information that they might recast, let us all know, but otherwise, IMO, we should go with that. Stephenb (Talk) 11:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A headline isn't enough, and as has been said at least twice already, they have refered to other actors by their character names. The headline is just to grab your attention. The article is what matters! This isn't to do with the BBC, it's to do with all reliable sources. They are all being careful not to say Lucy is leaving. Yes they haven't said Lucy is staying but we can't say she's leaving if she's staying. Not saying she's leaving doesn't mean we're saying she's staying. It's just waiting for confirmation. Which we don't have. Like I said, it could take months. For all we know, Bryan Kirkwood could still be deciding on Lucy's future, so he might not even know if Lucy is leaving. Compare to Rory Williams from Doctor Who. He travelled on the TARDIS, which people thought made him a companion of the Doctor, but we didn't say so on Wikipedia until reliable sources confirmed it. We have to wait. AnemoneProjectors 11:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The headline is just to grab your attention" is just your opinion. It's saying that Lucy is leaving, and that's the obvious interpretation. Equal to your argument, we can't say Lucy is staying if she's leaving, and we don't have to wait for confirmation, we already have it. "For all we know" - well, exactly - this is all just your supposition about what Brian Kirkwood is thinking or not thinking, we can only go with the evidence we have - and the only evidence is the headline. The only evidence that it might be recast is all in your head! Stephenb (Talk) 14:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again: "A headline is not good enough! They refer to actors by their character names. Every source is being careful not to say that Lucy is leaving." Is this so hard to understand? Are we saying it wrong? We're not saying Lucy is staying. I know I made suppositions but they are beside the point anyway! We must wait for a source that says Lucy is leaving and not just a headline where the article does not match the headline! As I keep saying, it could take months. Just be paatient. AnemoneProjectors 16:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again Of course the headline is enough! It's only your interpretation that the headline is not true. There is nothing to suggest otherwise. How patient do we need to be? It says it in the official BBC EastEnders News page! Is that so hard to understand? Am I saying it wrong? By implication, you are saying that Lucy is staying, even though the site says otherwise. We must wait for another source? Why would the BBC make another announcement - they've already made the one they needed to make! They aren't sitting around saying "oh, we need to clarify this for Wikipedia editors", it's been done! Stephenb (Talk) 16:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The headline and the article do not match! Every source is being careful to not say Lucy is not leaving. We aren't saying Lucy is staying, we are saying Suffield is leaving, and are waiting for confirmation on Lucy's fate. It hasn't been clarified at all, it's totally unclear. How patient do we have to be? I have said several times, it could take months before we know for sure. Would you rather publish something that turns out to be wrong or wait until we can be absolutely certain? I'm getting fed up of repeating the same points over and over again. I don't think you're taking any notice. AnemoneProjectors 16:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're clearly not making any progress here. I think we should get RFC involved, the question being something like "Is a headline where the article doesn't match the headline a good enough source to say the character is leaving?". AnemoneProjectors 17:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed the conversation isn't going anywhere, but I would assume it will only be up in the air for a few more days at most - I can't imagine none of the soap magazines passing comment on Tuesday, which should give us something more to go on, one way or the other. Frickative 19:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we wait until then, then? I don't read any soap magazines but I can't see them knowing anything that Digital Spy (for example) doesn't. AnemoneProjectors 20:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, but I'd be surprised if every single one stuck to mentioning Melissa without commenting on Lucy. They might not know with 100% certainty, but if they report it I think it's fair game that we can cover it. I don't usually buy any, but I flick through the new editions. (I don't read Digital Spy often, because I hate the way most of their articles are pulled from other sources but never link to the original. /tangent) Of course if it gets ignored the way it has been by most of the usual sources so far, we can re-asses. Frickative 20:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see what happens then. (Kris Green from Digital Spy is really good, though, at not pulling articles from other sources.) AnemoneProjectors 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just regarding the point about "not listening" - I am! The point of my argument was to show that for all of the BBC articles, the headline doesn't always match the content of the article but in all cases both the headline and content are correct. It's the most reliable source we have, unlike (say) "News of the World" with an unsourced quote (ahem). Stephenb (Talk) 15:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a News of the World source on this page. AnemoneProjectors 16:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We now know she's being recast. End of discussion :) AnemoneProjectors 10:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duration and things...[edit]

Ok, so, i remembered just a minute ago that on Bianca Jackson's wikipedia page there was a hidden note next to her duration some time back saying something along the lines of not changing it until official return/departure dates were announced, which means that if she were to have left in 2010, and returned in 2011, the duration would have been changed! And Bianca was always going to return too! SO... this is the same thing for Lucy! Why not change the duration for Lucy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.14.237 (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a wider discussion because it affects Tanya Branning as well. Personally I don't think the duration should be changed in these circumstances but we need to sort it out once and for all. AnemoneProjectors 12:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how will we go about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.14.237 (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy this discussion to WT:EE and we can discuss it there. AnemoneProjectors 19:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy (Melissa Suttfield) left Walford to go to Devon on August. She has not been since then. That's why I change the duration. I know that she'll be recast by 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.184.157 (talk • contribs)

Well we're still discussing it so please don't change anything until we have decided. AnemoneProjectors 12:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dont really see that actors maternity/paternity leave should constitute a break in duration. After all, the actors are still under contract in EE, they continue to be paid etc. If we are going to change this we should also take a look at Denise Johnson and Max Branning, as the actors who played them also had breaks for maternity/paternity leave. In fact, we could go all the way back and include Kat Moon and Mo Slater in the discussion too. Lucy to me is a separate issue as the actor ended their contract therefore there is a definate break in duration. Bleaney (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the discussion has moved to WT:EE#Durations though. AnemoneProjectors 17:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not returning[edit]

Apparently a soap mag has said there are now no plans for Lucy to return. Can someone a) confirm and b) cite the magazine to update this article? Thanks :) –AnemoneProjectors– 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the letters page of this weeks Inside Soap - "A Walford spokesperson has told Inside Soap that any storylines or casting decisions regarding the character of Peter have yet to be decided. And the same goes for the teen's twin sister, Lucy" - JuneGloom Talk 20:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That just means they haven't recast her yet, not that they won't. –AnemoneProjectors– 20:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think she should be put to past. If we have no indication that she is being recast, it's inaccurate to say she is returning for now.GunGagdinMoan 20:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But what would we say in the article? There's no confirmation that they've changed their mind about a recast. –AnemoneProjectors– 20:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with anemoneprojectors i think we should keep her returning. But if it says that peter is getting recast to shouldn't he be retuurning to?--MayhemMario (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I agree with Gungadin. Obviously Thomas Law's decision to quit and Laurie Brett's pregnancy will have influenced Lucy's future as a character since the recast was reported in June 2010. It's inaccurate to say she's returning when it's "undecided". That's like saying a character's leaving if the actor is undecided whether they will renew their contract. MayhemMario, it doesn't say that either of them are being recast, the spokesperson said that both of their futures were undecided, i.e. no decision has been made yet. I think it's best to assume, based on the latest information we have, that no return is planned at the moment. 144.124.121.55 (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It can still say that it was reported Kirkwood plans to recast, but saying she's a past character is not inaccurate even if there are plans to recast, because she is not there and when/if they do recast, then we can add her to returning. My opinion anyway, and probably same should be done with Peter. At the moment their returns are speculative.GunGagdinMoan 20:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well I suppose we can say that in February 2011, a spokesperson said whatever and cite the magazine. –AnemoneProjectors– 21:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I still don't think she should be classed as returning, here or on the character list, because they still haven't decided if she is. Obviously if there ever is an announcement about her returning, she should be added back onto the list, but at the moment, as Gungadin said, any return is purely speculative, and I'm sure there's a Wikipedia guideline somewhere against speculative information. 144.124.121.55 (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not speculative, it's the original plan. They've said the recast hasn't happened yet, but not that plan has changed. So saying she's returning isn't speculative. By the way Peter was never announced to be returning, so there's no issue with him - but whoever said he quit, that was also never announced. Just that he had filmed his exit. Update all the articles to say she's a past character if you want, we can just wait until they announce the recast. But it just leaves the article in limbo. –AnemoneProjectors– 21:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use it, the full Inside Soap ref is - <ref>{{cite journal|title=Petered Out?|pages=97|author=Sarah|work=[[Inside Soap]]|publisher=[[Hachette Filipacchi UK]]|date=12–18 February 2011|accessdate=10 February 2011}}</ref> - JuneGloom Talk 21:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an issue number as well? :) –AnemoneProjectors– 21:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6 :) - JuneGloom Talk 22:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article's in limbo whether we say she's past or returning anyway. Because until there's an announcement one way or another, we have nothing else to go on. Common sense says she's going to be back at some stage. Just a matter of time till they start planning it, but until we get something concrete we dont have any other choice really. Slightly different, but do you remember we had the same issue with Sharon Watts, who left in 2006 with an announcement that it was a break, and for ages and ages we had her in the 'returning section'. We never really got the official announcement that she wasnt coming back until digital spy asked them and so for all that time we listed her as returning when she wasnt. Probably not gonna happen with Lucy, but it could do and currently I do think it's inaccurate to list her as returning. Saying past covers the bases, because factually she is a past character, she might be a returnee, but she's not returning for the forseeable, and we dont know that for sure, so we may as well go with the fact on this instance to save all warring and reversion if nothing else.GunGagdinMoan 22:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated all relevant articles to class her as a past character until an announcement is made about her returning. 144.124.121.55 (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that. I did slightly reword the addition to this article. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to laugh after the "heated discussion" we had above :) :) I was completely proven wrong (and accepted defeat!) and now we're in the position of not knowing for certain again. But I think you've all ended up with the right article/character statuses now. Personally, I hope they both come back (and not recast). Stephenb (Talk) 15:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family[edit]

As Ben Mitchell is listed as her uncle, Im a wrong in saying that David Wicks should also be listed. Im only a casual eastenders viewer so i could be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.154.180 (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Wicks, yes is related somewhat, but is not relevant at all to Lucy's storylines. MayhemMario 13:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that makes no sense. Ben is not relevent to all her storylines yet is listed. Grant mitchell is listed as bens uncle and he is not even in it!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.154.180 (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then consider removing those people instead of insisting that David is listed in this article. Grant Mitchell is better known as Ben's uncle than David Wicks is as Lucy's, for sure. Also, sometimes edits get missed. –AnemoneProjectors– 15:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Family, again[edit]

David Wicks has been involved in Lucy's storylines, when she was a child if you remember Steven and Peter were seperated from Lucy who remained with Ian because their uncle David helped Cindy take the children and run away. He should be included. Pauline most definately should be included to. All the times she had the Beale twins and Bobby with her helping them out with school work, playing with them, looking after them when Ian was away - she was close family!--195.171.221.67 (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did they share any major storylines with each other? No - So they shouldnt be included. Bleaney (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide a reliable source to show there is a notable connection between them, then we can add them. –AnemoneProjectors– 22:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zrSkmbfy9M&playnext=1&list=PL6160BCE0257001BE&feature=results_video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEHlQgYQk-o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpWPZxQ1cHA (look at 9.27)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZNdoaySOt8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da8sr61-sWs
I will add Kathy, whoever removed her is guilty of vandalism--AngieWattsFan (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, it is only vandalism when going against consensus. Stephenb (Talk) 08:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again you, AngieWattsFan, are guilty of not knowing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Vandalism before you accuse experienced editors of vandalism. –AnemoneProjectors– 09:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is you who should read Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines because it clearly states: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. By removing Kathy Beale from Lucy Beale's page is vandalism. You might be an experienced editor but you clearly have not read the rules you should be following. How about you start listening to experienced EastEnders viewers, eh?--AngieWattsFan (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reading, then you'll see what is exactly meant by vandalism on Wikipedia. This is not vandalism. How about you start being civil, eh? –AnemoneProjectors– 17:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have kept all of it but it clearly states at the very beginning that andalism is any addition, removal or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. That is what you are doing by removing Kathy from her page and refusing to add Pauline. You are compromising the integrity of the Wikipedia page. I have watched EastEnders religiously from the very beginning since I was 9. I even applied to be a writer for the show, a couple of years back. Trust me, I know what I am talking about and you need help. Kathy has been crucial to Lucy Beale's storylines from the very beginning, please watch some old episodes (that is my homework for you). How long have you been watching the sho? 2007? On the other hand, Pauline has been very involved in the affairs of the Beales seeing as she was a surrogate grandmother and the head of the family. Personally, my view is that the family infobox is too narrow and I know that others agree but I am willing to work within consensus. So just stop being stubborn and let the will of the sensible overrule, please.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that the time you have been watching the show is irrelevant; I've been watching the show since the beginning, when I was 17. You're wrong about vandalism, btw: this is largely a content dispute and neither opinion as to what goes into infoboxes will compromise any integrity; however, Wikipedia works on consensus, and anyone who doesn't seek consensus for controversial changes could be seen as a vandal. Stephenb (Talk) 07:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific instead of just posting videos. When I said reliable sources, I meant third party ones. If you want me to watch the videos, tell me what I should be looking for. I'm not going to waste my time watching a 13 minute video of half an episode. Besides, video 2 doesn't even feature Lucy so was a total waste of time. Video 4 is after Pauline's dead, so if it's about a different character, let me know exactly who and what and when I should be watching - same for video 5, I'm not wasting time watching something that's probably not relevant. Video 3 shows Ian telling Lucy and Peter they have to go to Pauline's party. That's not a notable storyline and Pauline isn't in that scene. –AnemoneProjectors– 09:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I have given you the videos. Accept defeat on this issue and accept my changes are right. Watch the videos, watch the next videos and properly watch them. Anyway, name a notable storyline that Martin shared with Lou Beale. None, not really. Yet we accept she was his grandmother because there was a notable connection, she was involved in the circumstances surrouding his birth, she was close family, she was always there etc. Pauline had a notable connection: she was their great-aunt (the nearest thing they had to a grandmother) and she was head of the Beale family. She has been involved in more storylines involving Ian and his kids, more than you could shake a stick at. Please, except expertise. By the way, not only watch the videos but give me one good reason why Kathy is not mentioned because that decision to revert it UTTERLY ridiculous and makes me wonder whether certain people editing these pages have watched the programme for a while. Kathy was on the show for SEVEN years, helping to bring up those children, babysit, spend Christmas time etc. When Cindy kidnaps the Beale boys, she was involved! When Ian and Mel split, she involved! Lucy has had more involvement with Kathy (and Pauline) than she had with Ben who was more like a little cousin than an uncle.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained what a reliable source is, so I am not going to accept that these videos show there is a notable connection between Pauline and Lucy. Did I say there was a notable connection between Martin and Lou? I don't recall, sorry. But even if I did, that has nothing to do with this article. We are discussing Lucy and Pauline, not Martin and Lou. If you want to discuss Martin and Lou, please discuss it somewhere else. Kathy should not be included for the same reasons Pauline should not - babysitting (etc) is not a notable connection. Do you think Ben should be removed? If there is not a notable connection, then I can only agree. –AnemoneProjectors– 17:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relations to Kathy Beale[edit]

I would like to begin by apologising if I have upset and annoyed people. That has never been my intention, my only intention is to contribute towards Wikipedia and improve articles involving subjects which I am particularly interested in. However, just because I have been blocked for my actions, that will not stop me from standing up for what I believe is completely right and trying to forge a consensus on facts which I believe certain editors are deliberately ignoring. I will start with Kathy Beale and why she should be included. Those of you who have been watching EastEnders for a very long time will recall, that Kathy had a major involvement in the Ian's custody case. I will use a few sources:

- These links is Kathy's direct involvement in trying to rescue the Beale kids from Cindy Beale.

- This link shows that Kathy was involved in the storylines regarding Lucy and Mel Owen, often having to look after the kids when Ian was very depressed - a very important storyline.

- These show Kathy's strong involvement with all her grandchildren - Lucy, Peter and Steven. She even had to go to court for them. All of that is aside from the babysitting, family meals, Christmases and her death which had an effect. I will make my edit, and I hope afer watching all these clips, people will come to realise what I mean and what we can come to an agreement. I'd go as far as to argue that Kathy is more involved to Lucy's storylines, than Bev Williams - in fact that is a fact. So let us all take stock.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this is not the best thing to do after you were blocked for doing the exact same thing. Well, thanks for the apology. I hope this time around we can work together properly, without edit warring, and with starting discussions if an edit gets reverted, without re-reverting (otherwise I'm sure you can guess what will probably happen). I don't have time right now to watch these videos, but perhaps you're right about Kathy (note I only said "perhaps", this does not mean you are right, this is not consensus, this does not mean you can add her right now and it does not mean I think you are right). What do others think? –AnemoneProjectors– 17:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Im unsure. Ill accept that Kathy was involved in the very early days of Lucy et al's storylines. But how notable it is is debatable. I does seem strange that Den Watts is listed as Denny's grandfather and Kathy is not listed as Lucy's. We do need to be consistent. However we all know that Lucy's 'own storylines' only really started when Melissa Suffield was cast as her... long after Kathy had departed. Maybe it would be useful to have a much wider ranging discussion about which relatives to include in a characters infobox? I am open on this, but would ask all editors to be polite, not edit war and work for, then accept consensus. Bleaney (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, Bleaney there is a world of difference. Let's look at your argument. You are saying that Kathy was involved in Lucy's "very early days". That is irrelevant to be honest, because Lucy is one of the shows longest-running characters. Lucy has been in the show since 1993 and Kathy was in the show and a prominent figure in her life from 1993 until 2000. You can say her 'own storylines' but that is a false choice. Her storylines started from when she came on the show for eg. the custody battle. You are really making a false distinction. I urge you to watch the videos, please. You cannot make that argument. The difference between Den Watts and Kathy Beale is that Den Watts was dead when Denny was born, Kathy was alive and an influential figure in Lucy and et al's life until her departure. She helped bring them up. --AngieWattsFan (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to see that this might be a good reason to include Kathy. After all, as AngieWattsFan says, Lucy's a long-term character, and Kathy's a long-running, original character that many people will know of. I do agree with Bleaney as well though. I'm going to watch the videos as a reminder and then I'll get back to you. –AnemoneProjectors– 10:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've watched some of the videos but I'm not sure they matter. I can't find any news sources that mention are notable connection between these two, though I don't think we can deny that Kathy is a part of Lucy's life. But the question is, is it a notable part? I'm still not entirely convinced. –AnemoneProjectors– 10:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could apply the same argument to any grandparent in any child's life on EastEnders. Was Peggy that notable to Ben, in reality? Kathy was notable because not only did she help bring up the children (as shown in all of the videos) but she also was part of key storylines such as helping to rescue them from Cindy Beale and went to court to testify agaisnt Cindy for the children's sake. That is a very notable connection, and that would not have happened had she not been involved. The argument regarding Melissa Suffield, is not a substantiated one by a long shot. There is absolutely no reason at all why Kathy should not be mentioned.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kathy is Lucy's grandparent. She is not an obscure cousin or distant relative and they shared screen time. I think it is basic to include close family if they were shown to acknowledge one another at the least. You would expect those to be included, so without siding with disruption I can see their view. But I also see why this rule was created. But when it is not fending off Character X's great-great aunt who appeared some 20 years earlier - it is blocking basic information, using up time better spent on editing to participate in a discussion... not to mention the edit wars and upset. It feels slightly counterproductive.Rain the 1 13:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that if we were editing these articles in the 1990s, we'd probably have no problem with Kathy being listed. I'm leaning towards her being included now, especially as she testified in court for the children's sake. But in some cases it's more clear that a grandparent shouldn't be included, such as Alice and Reenie Branning, or Bianca Jackson and Pete Beale. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah im thinking Kathy could be included. Bleaney (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, let's put Kathy back :-) –AnemoneProjectors– 13:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last appearance[edit]

There's at least one source that says Lucy will appear somehow in Monday and Tuesday's episode. She might be dead, but that doesn't stop an appearance. There's another source that says Ian has to identify the body. The article currently contradicts these references and I can't keep reverting and fixing it. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relatives[edit]

Are these relatives relevant to Lucy Beale?

  • Bev Williams
  • Gina Williams
  • Bianca Jackson
  • Lexi Pearce
  • Pauline Fowler
  • Mark Fowler
  • Michelle Fowler
  • Michelle Fowler

SamLaws81101 (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't she stay with Bev and Gina off-screen in Devon or wherever? Does that count as relevant? The rest? I would say certainly not for Bianca and Lexi - per what I said on Ian Beale's talk page. Pauline, Mark and Michelle would more likely relate to Lucy's earlier days, so I can't be sure. Did you mean to list Michelle twice or did you mean Martin? anemoneprojectors 16:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did mean Martin, sorry for that error. When the Fowlers were around Lucy was only a kid so she most likely didn't have notable relationships with them, and I always thought that it was only what happens on screen that's important, so the off-screen stuff shouldn't really be considered.

SamLaws81101 (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same would go for Martin as the other Fowlers then. I think you're right about all of them - I think all these characters can be removed. anemoneprojectors 16:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I hope you don't mind me adding to this. I've watched episodes from when Lucy and Peter were young and I would include the Fowler's. Pauline seemed to treat Ian's children like the way she treat Martin and Vicki when they were young, almost like grandchildren, especially after Kathy left, Kathy's fake death etc. With Mark, Michelle and Martin, well, Mark and Michelle were like an aunt and uncle to them (the way Mark was to Vicki when she was younger) and Martin was what a cousin is. I can't remember everything in detail, but I do know they were close as they could be.
Grangehilllover (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did they have notable storylines or was Lucy just "there" around the Fowlers? Back then, children were mostly essentially "props" rather than "characters" (unlike today). Young Lucy's notable storylines were being left behind when Cindy abducted Peter and Steven, and Ian lying to Mel that Lucy has cancer - but even that's more of an Ian storyline than a Lucy one. I tend to think that if a relationship with another character is notable, the other character would be mentioned in the storylines section of the Wikipedia article - Pauline, Mark, Michelle, Martin, Kathy, Ben and David are not mentioned in the storylines (but Bev is). Maybe Ben should be since he mugged her in the flashback episode. anemoneprojectors 13:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Sorry I've taken so long to reply. Thinking again, they weren't really involved with Mark, Michelle or Martin, but I would definitely include Pauline. She acted like a grandmother to the Beale children and supported them once Kathy left and when she "died"-including Ben when he returned. I remember Lucy not wanting Jane to marry Ian the first time and Pauline was the one to persuade them to give Jane a chance.
Grangehilllover (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're probably right about Pauline, so maybe we should just include her. David was briefly involved with the Lucy murder storyline when he accused Max of killing her and destroys the evidence of him and Lucy arguing.

SamLaws81101 (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Thanks. And just so you know, I've removed the same relatives from Peter's page, apart from one or two, who he had storylines with, unlike Lucy (e.g. Beth).
Grangehilllover (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This all looks good to me. anemoneprojectors 18:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2019 return[edit]

OK, I have noticed that the classification etc has been changed quite a few times recently.

I've found this which indicates that the "dialogue" from Bywater recently is old dialogue. So Bywater hasn't returned. They've been using a body double for the rest.

Here's what I propose:

1) Leave Bywater as portraying Lucy up until 2015. 2) Portrayed as "uncredited" in 2019. 3) Duration to read "1993-2010, 2012-2015, 2019" as I doubt this storyline will go beyond 2019 4) Classification to read "Present, regular" as we never change the classification of a character. So once regular, always regular.

Alternatively:

Same as above but leave classification as "former, regular" and just update the last appearance.

-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AnemoneProjectors, JuneGloom07, Raintheone, Soaper1234, U-Mos tagging yourselves to make you aware of this discussion and because you've all contributed quite a lot to this article and soap articles. I've semi-protected the article tonight for a couple of weeks to try and get some sort of consensus on the talk page about this. Recent edits are well-meaning but edits like this one are starting to break the article.-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if the character is appearing as a ghost/vision then it's still new footage, so the ibox should be updated as you've proposed. I only undid one edit to the ibox, as I didn't see a source (or the episode). - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling has always been - and feel free to ignore if consensus is otherwise - uncredited appearances should never be in the infobox. That's what the article text is for, and it's immediately confusing for the character's duration to include this year when it isn't really the case (and for that to force a listing as 'Present, regular' too - which will also cause issues at List of EastEnders characters I imagine). The show doesn't consider these full appearances for the character, so I don't see why we should. Regarding the use of Bywater's archive performance, again the question is if she was credited. If yes, it should be treated the same as a new appearance (again, the article text can cover that Bywater didn't return to the show). If not, ignore it. U-Mos (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen one appearance of Bobby's vision of Lucy, I'm assuming there have been more. It was clearly not Hetti Bywater! Looked totally different, even blurry. Just FYI. Anyway, I'm going to agree with U-mos here. I wouldn't even consider this a return by Lucy, because it's not Lucy Beale the character, it's a vision. If she were credited it would be a different matter. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 02:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to follow your second proposal 5 albert square (or the first if consensus agrees). The character has reappeared, as a vision or whatever it is, but it still is that character and press/media are reporting that too. I agree with U-Mos that the "present; regular" status creates confusion at List of EastEnders characters, hence I believe we just update the last appearance as and when. I do, however, believe that uncredited appearances should be included as they are still appearances, something incorporated into the infobox. Also, to note - any archive footage should not be included as an "appearance" since it is not fresh. - Soaper1234 - talk 22:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought about this more and looked up the appearance [10], I'm leaning towards leaving the ibox as it is and mentioning the visions in the prose somewhere. - JuneGloom07 Talk 19:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lucy_Beale&oldid=1206205155"