Talk:Lou Beale

It is my opinion that any discussion of Lou Beale should remain completely focused on the character's life within the serial itself. The inclusion of the spin-off material, without sufficient explanation will only serve to confuse the reader and create a distorted view of the character (a big family woman, yet somehow she manages to lose three of her children who never feature within EastEnders). I think it is best that ANY reference to the spin-off novelisations and characters goes there, rather than on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.244.230 (talk)

I can see your point of view, I don't see any harm in adding the novel's information, so long as it is referenced etc. Perhaps a separate section should be included on Lou's page, entirely dedicated to the going on in the novels. That way it would be included on the page and also will be distinguisable from the on-screen stuff. Any thoughts? Gungadin 16:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Gungadin. That has been my problem all along, that Trampikey included this information without enough references - if we are going to include Harry, Dora and Ronnie within Lou's History we need to make it clear there that these are characters who were created through the EastEnders spin-offs, and are therefore not relevant to the life of the serial. I think your idea is great though - a section devoted purely to Lou's history within the novelisations would take away any of the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.244.230 (talk)

All information on characters is valuable, which includes the official information from the BBC approved novels, written by an EastEnders script writer, and information featuring in a BBC produced programme (Civvy Street). Also, as previously mentioned, information about the characters of Ronnie, Dora, Gail and Harry may be seen in articles about those particular characters, when I have created said articles. I have already produced an article on Harry Beale, and we do not need loads of information about those characters cluttering up this article. The Harry Beale article makes it clear that he featured in the spin-offs, but that doesn't make him any less of an EastEnders character.

I think you have done this as a personal preference, as you have removed all trace of the spin-off characters from the article on numerous occasions. Just because you don't want the information there, it doesn't make the information any less relevant.

I ask you to please stop removing this information, the books have been cited for certain facts within the article, and as I said, articles on Ronnie, Dora and Gail will be produced shortly. Thank you Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you think to Gungadin's proposal that any information regarding the EastEnder's spin-offs are included in their own section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.244.230 (talk)

As I said on your talk page, we should strive to gather all ready information on the character, in stead of just ignoring certain parts of her history. Therefore, information from the novels did happen in her past, and belongs in the section that describes the character's history. Having two sections describing two different stories would be stupid, and make the article look choppy. Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 17:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be made clear that information on her past is taken from a book and not from the TV show but not necessarily in a separate section. But information such as her sisters names should not be removed from the family section as the books and spin-off shows are considered to be canonical. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It is already made clear that it is taken from the book, I have added references to say that the information comes from the books, and the articles (when I have time to create them) will specify that those characters appeared in the books. Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 17:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that this distinction should be made more clear. And why not in a seperate section? Lou Beale is primarily a TV character - with a seperate history to that of the novelisations, of which Harry, Dora and Ronnie feature, as purely literary characters. In order to explore Lou's existence within the novelisations, creating a new section seems to be the best way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.244.230 (talk)

I think her history should be in chronological order, therefore the books and the Civvy Street spin-off would most likely come first anyway. Please can you sign your posts with 4 tildes (~)? Thanks. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Harry and Ronnie are not purely literary characters, they appear in Civvy Street also. Lou's past happened before the show was transmitted, are you saying that we should disregard the histories of all the EastEnders characters and just focus on their time in the show? We need to collect all the information we can on Lou Beale, and as none of the information actually contradicts each other, I don't see why it has to be split up. Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 17:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying we should disregard the histories of all the EastEnders characters and just focus on their time in the show. I am saying that we need to make a distinction between what has come from the TV serial and what has come from the novelisations. And that is what this argument is always going to come down to. You may not think the information contradicts each other, but it does. None of these characters have ever been metioned within the history of the serialisation by Pauline, Lou or Pete. Seeing as Ronnie, Dora and Harry are supposed to be family, that is a pretty big contradiction. Amenone, the tilde key on my keyboard is broken unfortunately, sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.244.230 (talk)

Then I suggest you buy a new keyboard or learn to copy and paste. Oh, and it's anemone not amenone. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ronnie is on the EastEnders website. Dora's wedding has been mentioned with the "Arthur proposing to Pauline" story, and Ronnie and Harry appeared in Civvy Street, produced by the same people as EastEnders. The distinction can be made, as I have said OVER and OVER again, in the articles that I shall be creating. Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 17:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Anemone. Anyway guys, I hope it is not a violation to edit article in a mature and intelligent fashion because that is what I will continue to do. It is a shame both of you have made this into a bigger deal than it really needs to be as it's clear we are all working towards the same aim. 84.68.244.230 17:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think, actually, that AnemoneProjectors and myself have reached a valid consensus, to keep the article how it is. If anyone else wishes to raise issue with this, they may do, but as we have both reached the consensus to leave it, it would be against WP:CON, an official Wikipedia guideline. Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 17:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mate, relax a bit sometimes! This is only meant to be a bit of fun, after all and we're only trying to make this article the best it can possibly be - so it's all good. ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.244.230 (talk)

I am not your mate, and Wikipedia is not "just a bit of fun" - there are regulations to be followed. Please don't act like you know me. You don't. Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 19:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea. perhaps we can leave all the information in the main body of the page as it is, including the extra bits from the novels that Trampikey has added. Then at the bottom of the page we can do a section about Lou in other media, which can explain about the novels and add a sentence to explain that the characters were not featured in the show etc. We can provide links in the main article to that part of the page. That way we dont have to clutter up the main body of the article with lots of explanations about the information's origin. Would anyone have a problem with that? I don't mind either way to be honest and I do think the information should be included, particularly as it was relevant to civvy st - i'm just trying to find a solution where everyone will be happy. Gungadin 18:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea Gungadin. I have written a paragraph which I hope is to everyone's liking. If not - please post in here any grievances, rather than just directly reverting to an old edit - or shouting at me. I really hope we can sort out this issue to everyone's satisfaction. Thanks by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.244.230 (talk)

You shouldn't have edited the article until a consensus was reached. I do not agree with what you did, and think the article shold be left in its present state, which is the consensus reached by myself and AnemoneProjectors. Gungadin was only submitting an idea to keep people happy, and is therefore neutral, so, as previously stated, if anyone else has any grievances, they may contest the consensus here, otherwise, the article whould stay how it is. Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 19:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)