Talk:Teddy Mitchell

Teddy Mitchell has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 20, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

Soap Operas

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera

EastEnders

This article is within the scope of WikiProject EastEnders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the popular BBC soap opera EastEnders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EastEndersWikipedia:WikiProject EastEndersTemplate:WikiProject EastEndersEastEnders

Tasks for WikiProject EastEnders:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Expand : All articles listed in Category:Stub-Class EastEnders articles and Category:EastEnders articles in need of real-world perspective
Other :
- Improve to FA standard: EastEnders: E20
- Improve to GA standard: EastEnders
- Maintain: List of EastEnders characters (2023), List of EastEnders characters, List of former EastEnders characters, List of awards and nominations received by EastEnders
- Get involved in the Wikipedia EastEnders Project.

This article was nominated for deletion on December 9, 2005. The result of the discussion was Delete.

Presentation of Duration

The presentation of character duration must remain consistent across Eastenders character pages.

The reverts to "since 'year'" are incorrect, grammatically inaccurate, visually ugly and not concise or consistent with how character durations are represented across all soap. This is not the first time I've had to make this correction. GuyFromEE (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out—several times, mind you, which have been ignored—per MOS:DATETOPRES/MOS:SINCE it states: Except on pages that are inherently time-sensitive and updated regularly (e.g. the "Current events" portal), terms such as now, today, currently, present, to date, so far, soon, upcoming, ongoing, and recently should usually be avoided in favor of phrases such as during the 2010s, since 2010, and in August 2020. Wording can usually be modified to remove the "now" perspective: not she is the current director but she became director on 1 January 2024; not 2010–present but beginning in 2010 or since 2010. As such, 2024 is the present-tense, plus, the edit also fails to adhere to MOS:NDASH. Manual of style is built to be ever-evolving and followed. There is no consensus at WP:SOAPS that overrides the MOS that stands. Discussion should be held at the WikiProject for Soap Operas. livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But not when in complete contradiction to established presentation formats consistent with other current and past characters on the show.

Phil Mitchell as an example "2005-present" not "Since 2005"

You're contradicting established, consistent continuity in presentation style. GuyFromEE (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the MOS stands and is to be followed. Choosing to ignore the MOS, from discussions at the Soap Opera Project, is not founded. And I've yet to be presented with a community consensus that was previously-founded. Again, 2024 is the present tense, so "since 2024" is to be used, or years are to be removed altogether, as the first appearance date (sans final) proves the character is still appearing (as it would be at yearly character pages). And, at Phil Mitchell it states 2005–present (follows the continually ignored MOS:NASH), not 2005-present (which ignores MOS:NDASH). Again, MOS is ever-evolving. livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Since 2024" is not the agreed upon MOS when judged on literally every other Eastenders character wikipedia article.

"Year-" is still far more accurate than "Since 'year'"

Stick to the consistent presentation agreed/used across all UK soap characters and Australian soap characters. GuyFromEE (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you've yet to provide a community-agreed consensus, which while can challenge the MOS, it cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. MOS stands and is to be followed. It's the guideline of Wikipedia. You're ignoring everything being stated to repeat the same, exact statement over-and-over again, which in fact, the statement is wrong. MOS > community consensus > what you're stating (with, again, no proof of community discussion provided). Seems like a strong case of ownership right now. livelikemusic (TALK!) 19:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The agreed upon census is in the visual evidence of all Eastenders character pages.

Not one of them use "Since 'year'" including other soap operas, even Australian soap operas. They all use a standard, concise, specific visual layout of "Year-present". It's not a strong case of ownership when you're the one going against the standard layout for character duration that is used across all characters. Stick to that layout/agreed presentation when creating/editing Eastenders character pages.

It can't be a case of ownership when I'm simply following the given format. GuyFromEE (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And refrain from removing discussions on this topic please. Archiving/deleting discussions is not healthy to a creative conversation. GuyFromEE (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a consensus, then, which means the MOS stands, and you reverting against MOS is a warn-able offense. The MOS-defined policy is what must be followed, and editing against it, especially without a discussion, is violation of that. Period. Point blank. And, on top of that, no discussion has been removed from this talk page, for the record, despite an unassuming of good faith. Again, I am following MOS and not ignoring it like others. As previously-explained, MOS is an ever-evolving, community-built discussion point. At present, the MOS stands where it is, and refusal to accept that is violating Wikipedia's rules to be followed. As outlined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style, it states: If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence. Which would mean the MOS has immediate weight over a non-discussion decision, for which editors have continued to ignore the manual of style. livelikemusic (TALK!) 21:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following the defined policy thank you very much.

i am also following the consistent visual representation of all characters and their duration across all the articles. Ruby Allen for example keeps getting changed and has inconsistent duration (two different ones) presentation. Her previous stints using the agreed upon, consistent presentation while @EEFishHam continues to persist with using a presentation style no one else uses making the articles look amateur as a result. GuyFromEE (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're actively vandalising articles now.

Enough is enough. GuyFromEE (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Teddy Mitchell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: FishLoveHam (talk · contribs) 19:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) 02:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I will be reviewing this page. I have noticed your other GA pages which are very impressive so I hope that I get to help you with this.

I will do a proper review after this, but I first wanted to address 6 potential issues that could be addressed.

1.) Casting and creation section: "Teddy, Harry, and Barney were set to arrive in the show later in June. They eventually made their first appearances in the episode airing on 26 June 2024" - I would recommend getting rid of "eventually" and merging the sentences together (e.g. "Teddy, Harry and Ted made their first appearances in the episode airing on 26 June 2024").

Not done I've removed "eventually", but kept the sentences seperate as one is about when they were TEASED to arrive, while the other is when they actually did. FishLoveHam (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend removing the teased bit and still merging it as it is a bit redundant - If the months that they were expected to arrive was different, I would keep that in as it would show the delay in development/introduction etc but as it is the same I would just keep it to when they made their first appearances. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2.) Stability - Technically there (very unfortunately) been an edit war on this article by other editors - however, this was over a week ago now and the issue has since calmed down, and it is only referring to the tiny Duration section and not any sourced content, so I highly doubt it will be an issue. Additionally, once 2025 begins the "2024–present" will not be an issue anymore.

3.) I personally believe that the Development section should occur before the "Storylines" section as the development - particularly the casting, promotion and characterisation - chronologically occurred first.

Not done I disagree unfortunately. The storylines provide context and, as a personal preference, this isn't a requirement, right?

4.) Regarding the development and reception - I think that it could be expanded to include the more recent development, such as Teddy's relationship with Sharon and his feud with the Panesars/Gulatis, and include a wider range of sources. There are various magazine articles and interviews - I am not sure if you have access to them, but I am happy to send you screenshots of them via Wikipedia email to help (I know that I have helped in providing offline sources for some of your other articles, so I am very happy to send you some as I know that the economy is hard right now and you may not be able to afford/want to buy magazines right now) :)

Not done I've scoured the web, and, aside from spoilers, there's truly nothing else I can find about his development. There hasn't been an interview with Manookian or anyone involved with the show which really discusses his relationship with Sharon thoroughly enough to warrant its own section as of now. The rivalry with the Panesars probably won't be revisited in the show, as Nish is on his way out, and there is similarly nothing to really use there. The article cites over 20 references, surely that's enough to pass WP:GNG. FishLoveHam (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done FishLoveHam (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Great work! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5.) This article could do with a couple of free images - I recommend Perry Fenwick. If you include information about Teddy's relationship with Sharon then it would make sense to include a picture of Letitia Dean too.

Done Thanks for the suggestion! FishLoveHam (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6.) Lead: A.) I would recommend putting the casting info and characterisation first before the "His storylines have included" bit as, again, they chronologically occur first, and real-world info is the most important. Done B.) "search of his father Stevie Mitchell (Alan Ford), his discovery that Stevie had another family" - I would merge this together and maybe put it before the "his storylines include bit" (e.g. "Teddy was introduced searching for his father Stevie Mitchell (Alan Ford), where he discovers that he has another family" merge: Done Reorder: Not done I just feel like it flows better to include it in the storylines section, as i have already written he was introduced as the head of the New Mitchells. C.) Not completely essential, but I believe that "his protective nature over his sons" could be slotted somewhere in the characterisation section of the lead. Done FishLoveHam (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When these are addressed I will do a full review (though do not worry about #2).

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions at all :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: I've addressed everything, thanks so much for the review! FishLoveHam (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much and well done for the expansion! I still recommend merging the sentence in #1 but in the mean time I will pass it - Well done! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have spotchecked refs 7, 16 and 22 - no issues there. Will pass it now. Well done :D DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.