Talk:Kathy Beale

Mitchell

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.

---

We refer to Michelle Fowler as Fowler, though we know she re-married. I know this isn't a good example as Fowler is her maiden name anyway, but Mitchell is Kathy's las known name. She wasn't known as Hills at the time of her exit. Also, as Ben's surname remains Mitchell it is possible that she kept the name Mitchell when she re-married so she had the same name as Ben... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, I think it was the right decision to move it to Mitchell.Gungadin 19:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we always go by what was last known about a character who left. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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.

Kathleen or Katherine?

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 page says it was Kathleen in 1985, but this page (from the same website) says it was Katherine in 1994... which one!? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ive only ever heard Kathleen used. Gungadin 00:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's Katherine. In a 1997 episode she tells Pat a story about her school days and describes a teacher addressing her as 'Katherine Hills'. Smurfmeister (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

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.

Possible sources

• Walford Gazette interview —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gungadin (talk • contribs) 22:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Her name in the opening paragraph

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.

---

I don't think we should say her name is Kathy Sullivan, because she was never known but that name in the show, and we only found out from the BBC's website several years later. Anybody agree? AnemoneProjectors 20:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree and am offended that someone has done this to such a soap icon. It's vandalism.

It is not vandalism. We have a source saying she married a man called Sullivan in South Africa. But what I said already. AnemoneProjectors 22:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think we should be using the name Sullivan AP. She was known as Mitchell and Beale. People still call her Kathy Beale now but her last known name in the show was Mitchell and I think we should go by that and perhaps mention somewhere in the article she married a man with the surname Sullivan. There's no proof she even changed her name to Sullivan when she got married but we do know she became a Mitchell in 1995. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.187.106 (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I in my opening post. Just waiting for wider consensus. AnemoneProjectors 16:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of her name did we ever establish if she was Katherine or Kathleen. Gungadin reckons it was Kathleen but the article says Katherine and is backed up by a source. It's all very odd. I still don't think she should be called Sullivan either as she was never known by that name in the programme, people won't search for Kathy Sullivan but they will search for Kathy Beale or Kathy Mitchell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.0.182 (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea about that but I have edited the lead to explain the Sullivan name. AnemoneProjectors 12:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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.

Common name

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.

---

Shouldnt this article be known as Kathy Beale per WP:COMMON NAME? Bleaney (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Depends. Is that the name she's best known as? –AnemoneProjectors– 13:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is, even now she is referred to as Beale rather than Mitchell 81.20.188.79 (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never called her Kathy Beale. George^Ping! 09:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ive always known her as Kathy Beale! Bleaney (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) She was a Beale for 10 years and a Mitchell for 5. I guess Beale should technically win, but 5 years is also a long time for that name to stick. This is probably a tricky one. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Common sense suggests that Kathy's common name is Beale. If it makes one iota of difference, I recall that on Strictly Come Dancing, they introduced Gillian Taylforth, and even she said I am probably best remembered for playing Kathy Beale in EE.' Plus she was only actually a Mitchell on screen for about 3 years in total. I dont know if this counts but a recent article cites her as Beale too http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/4304573/TVs-Gillian-Taylforth-shows-off-incredible-figure-in-swimsuit-aged-56.html GunGagdin^Moan 19:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Can someone do a web search?? Bleaney (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Kathy Beale seems more popular 81.20.179.232 (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Beale is the way to go then. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean the page will be moved to Kathy Beale? 81.20.179.232 (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Only if we reach consensus. We need more contributors. –AnemoneProjectors– 10:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd go for Kathy Beale... does anyone object? Bleaney (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I think Kathy Beale is fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.187.61 (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Should be Beale, not Mitchell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercyme22 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Mitchell.........................George^Ping! 20:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly Beale — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.181.107 (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Google News has 60 results for '"Kathy Beale" EastEnders -wikipedia' and 15 for '"Kathy Mitchell" EastEnders -wikipedia'. That's usually a good indication of what to use. The two most recent results refer to her as Beale. [1][2] –AnemoneProjectors– 09:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Then I think the stats you have found AP mean we should definately change her to Beale. Bleaney (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well it looks like a page move will require an admin to do it as Kathy Beale has a page history. I can do it but I'll wait a bit just in case there are any other objections or if anyone else has anything to say! –AnemoneProjectors– 13:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe now is the time to move it to Beale, no objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.178.34 (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, it needs an ADMIN to do it. Whoever did it, did a cut and paste move. I've now had to fix it. Please have patience next time. –AnemoneProjectors– 13

34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

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.

Present

Kathy should be classed as a present character as she has already reappeared in the show. Her lack of appearances at the moment are very much dictated by the slow-burning nature of her storyline. She is still a part of the cast. Ian and Jane have been out of it for weeks now but we still class them as current characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.222.223 (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Surely the 'played by Gillian Taylforth between 1985-2000' part of the lead needs editing to reflect the character's 2015 return, she has already made a 2015 appearance so 'and then from 2015 onwards' would suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.190.78 (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, I've updated the lead. I also changed "She made her final appearance in January 2000", because it wasn't her final appearance. –AnemoneProjectors– 22:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Bobby Beale

I won't revert again to avoid an edit war, but it's utterly ridiculous not to include him as her grandson. The decision to only include relatives characters have had meaningful relationships with was intended to avoid long lists of obscure connections (step-aunt by marriage etc.). It shouldn't be blindly applied when clearly not necessary from a practical point of view. Yes, as of today Kathy has yet to meet Bobby, but she's a confirmed permanent returnee - there is no reason to believe that she won't have a relationship with her grandson. If Kathy was still 'dead' and this was a former character page, there might be a case for not including him (though still a tenuous one in my view). But she isn't, and Bobby is the son of the character she shares her most significant relationship with. What are you achieving by delaying this until they share a scene? Smurfmeister (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The relationship should be notable. At the moment it's not, because they haven't been involved in a storyline together. I'm sure they will be, but then again I don't own a crystal ball. What if they actually never meet? We didn't know Cindy was leaving - what else don't we know? –AnemoneProjectors– 15:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kathy Beale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070320058635/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/pressoffice/keyfacts/stories/eastenders.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/keyfacts/stories/eastenders.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Kathy to kill Phil... as if

'It was reported on 12 October 2016 that a storyline will occur where Kathy will attempt to murder Phil.' is it normal to include tabloid speculation/hyperbole in these articles? This wasn't a confirmed storyline by the BBC and it seems to me it was hyperbole stemming from Kathy opposing Ben being a donor. Anyone who thinks Kathy would actually kill Phil clearly doesn't know the character. Of course characters aren't always written in character - indeed many aspects of Kathy haven't been on the money this stint - but this one's a real stretch. I highly doubt they would go there and there's no confirmation they're going to.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kathy Beale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_19971102/ai_n14471142?tag=content;col1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_19980419/ai_n14477603?tag=content;col1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_19980301/ai_n14473752?tag=content;col1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20001029/ai_n14518169?tag=content;col1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071107160801/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20050206/ai_n9500632 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20050206/ai_n9500632

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Full names/aliases

Regarding the debate over how and where to state characters full names, middle names etc. surely the prior format is the best way in which to do it?

Name including full and shortened versions if known stated at the beginning of the article, with other surnames/aliases/pseudonyms stated in the alias section?

If middle names are now to be included in articles, they should also be stated at the beginning of the article where it will always be up to date with a characters present surname. Otherwise using Kathy as an example we would have to state Katherine Elizabeth Beale, Katherine Elizabeth Mitchell, Katherine Elizabeth Sullivan and Katherine Elizabeth Richards as they would all have been her name at one point. Whereas stating “Katherine” at the beginning of the article means her middle name is included whilst not having to list it separately for her and other characters?

This seems like the most logical solution. Tomski12 (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)