Talk:Pauline Fowler

Did my contribution of the line "If you want to know why I am the way I am..." line survive the butchering of this article? I might be being dumb but I can't see it and it was a good quote... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Elonka removed that. I never knew why, maybe she thought we'd already covered it elsewhere. I also thought it was a good line. Lots of things got removed during that horrid FAC. There was this big fuss about us using tabloids as sources so we had to get rid of loads of those, but the worst part is the awful present tense we were made to put in. It now flits from present to past throughout.Gungadin♦ —Preceding comment was added at 23:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not remembering the details, can you remind me of the quote and source? --Elonka 00:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It was from this edit Trampikey's referring to the bit that was removed from the bottom, where Pauline attributes her misery to the deaths of those around her. Gungadin♦ 00:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this one?

Pauline became progressively miserable and stern over the course of the show,^[1] and was referred to as "Fowler the growler" by several other characters in the programme.^[2] Pauline addressed this during an on-screen conversation with her best friend, Dot, in a June 2004 episode, where she attributed her sombre personality to the deaths of those around her, saying "If you want to know why I am the way I am, look no further than that."^[3]

The "Fowler the Growler" bit got moved up higher in the section, but I left off the other part because it felt like it was muddling the in-universe and real-world aspects. To say "Pauline addressed this" seems wrong, since Pauline's a fictional character, it's not up to her to "address" her own character development. Also, do we have a source that shows that the quote is particularly notable? --Elonka 01:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a notable quote, you probably wont find it anywhere other than a repeat of the episode. Trampikey only added it during the first FAC because J.Winklethorpe asked us to include why Pauline became so miserable, and the deaths of her family was the reason why, according to the writers in 2004.--Gungadin 16:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Saw this on TFA/R, thought "no, British soaps and FAs don't mix", but actually, I am very impressed. Will ^(talk) 22:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

On behalf of WikiProject EastEnders, thanks for taking the time to read the article and leave a comment, it's greatly appreciated. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Tabloid trash on the mainpage? what next? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.200.20 (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

<div style="width:55%; background-color:#f5fffa; border:1px solid #cef2e0;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em; color: black"> <div style="float:left;margin-right:0.9em"> [[Image:Pauline Fowler.jpg|left|150px|Wendy Richard as Pauline Fowler, 2006.]] </div> <div> '''[[Pauline Fowler]]''' ([[Married and maiden names|née]] Beale) is one of the [[fictional character]]s from the [[BBC]] [[soap opera]] ''[[EastEnders]]'', a long-running [[serial drama]] about [[working class]] [[London]]. The character is no longer part of current storylines, but was played by actress [[Wendy Richard]] between 1985 and 2006. Pauline was created by scriptwriter [[Tony Holland]] and producer [[Julia Smith]] as one of ''EastEnders' ''original characters. She made her debut in the soap's first episode on [[19 February]] [[1985]], and remained on-screen for twenty-one years and ten months, making her the second longest-running original character, surpassed only by [[Ian Beale]]. Pauline Fowler's storylines focus on drudgery, money worries and family troubles. The matriarchal stalwart of the fictional London community of [[Albert Square]], she is portrayed as a stoic, opinionated, battle-axe — a family-oriented woman who alienates her kin due to overbearing interference. Pauline's marriage to the downtrodden [[Arthur Fowler|Arthur]] was central to the character for the first eleven years of the programme, culminating with his screen death in 1996. She was used for comedic purposes in scenes with her [[Self-service laundry|launderette]] colleague, [[Dot Branning]], and scriptwriters included many feuds in her narrative, most notably with her daughter-in-law, [[Sonia Fowler|Sonia]], and [[Den Watts]], a family-friend who got her daughter [[Michelle Fowler|Michelle]] pregnant at just 16. A famous episode in 1986, which included Pauline discovering that Den was the father of Michelle's baby, drew over 30 million viewers, and was listed at #36 in ''[[The Times]]' '' 1998 list of "Top 100 cult moments in Film". ('''[[Pauline Fowler|more…]]''') </div> </div> -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Excluding the image, as it's fair use. ^anemone│_projectors 23:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume we're trying for February 19? If so, please post here if you can get it to "stick" on the requests page (which I agree is a current nightmare that reminds me more of an eBay auction than an encyclopedic process). If it's there though, I'll definitely weigh in to support.  :) --Elonka 23:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone's already requested that date. We got there first but it was removed because there were already five requests on the page. ^anemone│_projectors 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) We're going for March 11, as Fbruary 19 is taken. What are we going to do about an image? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no free images, so I guess nothing. ^anemone│_projectors 23:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

We could always sabotage the current 19 feb nomination, by opposing it (just kidding)Gungadin 23:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

i cant believe there's no free images of wendy Richard yet. She's often out and about shopping in London or walking her dogs. I saw her once in High Street Kensington I think, she was smoking a cigarette! Should have got her with my camera phone :) Gungadin 01:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If there was one, could we use it, even though it wouldn't be Pauline Fowler? ^anemone│_projectors 10:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

They'd use it for the main page, seeing as they cant put fair use on there, but it wouldn't be on the actual page. If they desperately need something, they can always use your sat image of the river thames, the one you took for the ee project icon.Gungadin 17:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

DAMN, March 11 has been taken by Chrono Trigger.Gungadin 21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there are a lot of complaints at the FAR talkpage about the way that articles are being chosen. This "first come, first served" system is relatively new, and obviously not very effective, but it's all we've got to deal with at the moment. The central problem, is that FAs are being approved faster than one per day, so there is a steadily increasing backlog (over 1000 Featured articles, and growing) of articles which may never make it onto the mainpage at this rate. Discussions are ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests on how to provide a better system, but no one's come up with a good way of dealing with the bottleneck yet. If anyone else has ideas (or just wants to weigh in), please participate at the talkpage there. However, please please please be on your best behavior. The ultimate decider on this is one editor, Raul654 (and his assistant, SandyGeorgia). So saying something to antagonize them, when they are already heavily overworked, is not going to be helpful, and if anything, will push our article even further back (or completely off) the queue. And yes, I know it's Wikipolitics, and yes, it's irritating, but all I can do is explain it, I can't fix it.  :/ --Elonka 22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Per 3RR, I can no longer revert. However, I am deeply unhappy about this amateur looking, trivial section. Her family are listed in a template at the article's bottom and in the infobox, so a third section is stupid anyway. But to have this makes the article look a lot less like an encyclopedia, I'm sure fans will be interested that her second cousin twice removed is Nellie Ellis, but its not encyclopedia at all. A list of misc family members is not suitable for Wikipedia. The arguments, from Trampikey, include "it provides extra info" - which is purely trivial. Remember this is an encyclopedia not a fansite. Another reason is "links ot toer characters" - the links are provided in the infobox and template. In addition, Pauline Fowler's article is about her, not a useful list of other EastEnders characters. The other reason is "per all other WPEE articles", this one is a FA and should set the example. All the actual guideline is at the Wikiproject and comes below the WP guidelines. Trampikey also states that the family section was there when it became a FA, well according to this it wasn't. It was added back by an IP here some weeks later. This was removed by Elonka later and then re-added by Trampikey many times when people have removed it. --UpDown (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we had a peer review before the article was nominated, and the family section was heavily criticised, which is why it was removed and transferred to the infobox. Edit warring is not going to solve anything though. What about if we just add every single family field to Template:Infobox EastEnders character 2? That means no loss of any information or links.Gungadin 22:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I attempted it, but it doesnt really work. We would have to extend the length of the ibox to fit them in, or abbreviate, so perhaps G grandchildren, or GG grandchildren, 2nd cousin or something? what do you want to do? no matter, Trampikey fixed it.Gungadin 22:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't there unnecessary non-free images on this page? I attempted to remove 5 of the 78 non-free images but was reverted. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed at /Archive 1#Images. The current images seem fine to me, representative of key moments in the long history of this character. --Elonka 19:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Elonka. We had some superfluous images that were removed during the first FAC, to the satisfaction of the reviewer, and the matter was dropped. As Elonka has said, all the images are there to illustrate key moments in the character's history and they are all discussed critically within the article.User:Gungadin 20:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

They may be representative of key moments, I'm just having trouble as seeing them as anything but decorative. Arthur gets hit with frying pan: pic of Arthur getting hit with frying pan. Pauline gets married: pic of Pauline and hubby in fancy clothes. Arthur is released from jail: pic of Pauline and Arthur. Pauline gets slapped: pic of Pauline getting slapped. Pauline is friends with Dot: pic of Pauline and Dot. What cannot be adequately imparted by text about these? 86.44.16.82 (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess if "iconic" is taken from the source, as it seems to be, that could be an argument for the frying pan pic. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont agree, I think they all illustrate something important.GunGadin^Moan 23:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think they merely mark key moments in the soap life of this character, which would be sound editorial and aesthetic judgment were we not hampered by non-free policy, but we are. 86.44.21.238 (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize this discussion has now gone cold, but just so editors can get an idea of where I'm coming from here—a point on which there has been some question—permit me to talk about my reasoning in leaving the 7th image in the article when I made my edit.

To me, Fowler's death, in conjunction with being an obviously highly notable moment in the subject's article, has a strange quality to it, especially in terms of soap deaths, a highly visual and almost lyrical quality that I cannot imagine can be adequately imparted by text alone. I would therefore argue strongly for its inclusion in any debate, not that there is one. But it's entirely a subjective argument, and if consensus went against me, I could not therefore feel anything that could give rise to more than a shrug. Were my thoughts on the visual quality of this death backed up by sources, I would feel I had a stronger case. Hence my recent ambivalence with regard to the frying pan pic, based merely on the word "iconic" in a source. I don't think I'm being a non-free "hawk" here, I just feel that many of the images are decorative, and that such use is unbecoming of an FA standard article here on Wikipedia. 86.44.21.238 (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I do respect your opinion, but it is just that, an opinion, and it's one I don't share. I can argue that the fairuse are all there to illustrate critical commentary within the text and that their use increases readers' understanding of the character, because we talk in-depth about those plot elements that are illustrated. Maybe they dont increase your understanding, which is why you think they are decorative, but we cater for everyone, and others may not share that opinion. But, even if I was willing to accept the removal of some, I dont accept the removal of 5. I noticed that you edit this page New school hip hop. What's so different about using all those fairuse images in that page? You obviously approve of their use, seeing as you edit the page, but I can argue that they are just decorative. Not that I am asking you to delete mind, and I dont want to seem pointy, I just dont get the reasoning.GG^Moan 20:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Two of the defining characteristics of that period are to do with how its artists presented themselves, and their political concerns, moving from social commentary to black radicalism. These two are linked, of course. My hope is that this is all clear from the article. All the image use is connected to portraying that in a way that text would not adequately do. It's minimal use too: the covers of the debut records of BDP and Eric B. & Rakim also have good justifications for inclusion, as you can see from reading the article, but i thought them slightly less informational in an article that was already non-free heavy. So we have two images for showing the change from showbiz to street, two are necessary for understanding one strong, important BDP allusion, and one for PE showing a rap logo that is "a hatted b-boy in a sniper's gunsights" along with their expressions and stances as they stand behind bars in a cell while IT TAKES A NATION OF MILLIONS TO HOLD US BACK is emblazoned in red across the image. (This last cover was shot by a photographer associated with counterculture/youth rebellion). I think these are strongly visual points, and add to the article way beyond anything text could reasonably do. I realize you say above that you don't feel the same, but to be honest I'm kind of hoping you haven't read the article closely. 86.44.21.238 (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you illustrating those things in the Hip Hop article is fine, but your reasoning is subjective, just as our reasoning for including the images in this page are, and my point is that someone could come along and accuse them of being decorative, just as you have done here.GG^Moan 21:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And I could rebut them with reasonable argument, which hasn't really happened here yet. Also the degree to which my reasoning is subjective is limited, as it can be supported with sources. But note that I've already said that my view is that subjective arguments can still be decent ones. 86.44.21.238 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I can counter your reasaonble arguments (again, a subjective opinion). Discounting the fact that there was a massive push to eliminate all album art from anything but the article of that album, what exactly couldn't be conveyed by using description in the prose? which is an argument that you have used to delete the image on Pauline. That you think 5 images on that page is "minimal use" seems strange, considering you think this page should only be entilted to three. Not to mention that the art is all displayed in the album articles anyway. Wouldnt a link to the album suffice? We have refuted your arguments for deletion here with just as reasonable arguments as you. We also think these portray strongly visual points, and add to the article way beyond anything text could reasonably do.GG^Moan 22:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

:( Am unhappy at the turn this has taken. Will get back to you (it's late here). Who's we? 86.44.21.238 (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, "we" (so far) refers to Elonka and I, seeing as we have defended the use of the images in this discussion, but it can also be extended to everyone who was part of the discussion we had last year concerning which images we should include during the FAC, because if we didnt feel they were important, we wouldnt have kept them in.GG^Moan 22:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We have refuted your arguments for deletion here with just as reasonable arguments as you. Even taking into account my being somewhat laconic out of a regard for what talk page I am actually on, do you really believe this?

I've explained that my image use strikes to the heart of the article, briefly detailed distinct justifications for each image, and indicated that they are backed up by sources. In addition I've explained at some length why one of the images here seems fine to me, allowed that another may be justified due to representing an "iconic" moment, and considered a third (young Pauline) as beyond argument. Since I'm disputing or at least questioning the image use here, might I not expect some arguments approaching a similar level for each image you wish to retain in this FA class article? 86.44.27.87 (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Distinct justifications" explaining how your image use "strikes to the heart of the article"? Do you really think that? To me your arguments are flawed and based on personal opinion, as I pointed out above. In my view, they illustrate nothing that text couldn't and just seem like unnecessary decoration. But that's all down to personal interpretation. Isnt it funny how a person's view is skewed depending on their actual interest in a given subject? What's an important visual cue to one person, is an superfluous distraction to another. Perhaps you should be considering that in this discussion.

Why you seem to think that your opinion about the images on this page is the only one that matters is baffling. You have decreed that certain images are fine, so therefore they are fine, while those that you say are not should automatically be removed. Sorry, that's not the way it works, BK. You can "expect" answers all you like and, even though you are not entitled to them, you have been aswered. Whether the answers are to your satisfaction or not is a different matter. The images represent key moments in the character's history. Her marriage to Arthur - 11 years of the programme, the longest marriage in the soap's history, a defining storyline in the show, therefore we show a picture of them together. All this is discussed at length in the article, and all of it is sourced. As you rightly pointed out, it is an FA class article and has been subjected to a high level of review over its two FACs and two peer reviews, and it is also listed as an exemplary article in Wikipedia's own MOS guidenline writing about fiction. And out of all those reviewers, only you have expressed a problem with the image use as it is. Perhaps you might consider then, that you are in the minority here. Moving on, her marriage to Joe Macer, again another defining storyline marking the show's 20th anniversary - also the reason why the actress decided to leave etc etc. Again, all these plots are discussed at length in the article, all is sourced, and I too feel that they "strike to the heart of the article". More of the same for the others, but as ive said, i'm ok with discussing the removal of some, but not the amount you want. If you are desperate to get rid of some, at a push i'm fine with the removal of Pauline and Dot, and possibly (but less so) Sonia slapping Pauline, (if no one else objects, of course). I have to go into work for a few hours now, so i'm afraid I wont be around to reply again.GG^Moan 15:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, i sought to explain, briefly the rationales behind that image use, and would further explain either to your satisfaction or a point of impasse a lot further down the line, at which point we'd have to seek wider input in the hope that consensus would emerge. If you genuinely have an issue, bring it to that article's talk, since it's confusing dealing with thought experiments and whether you are or are not happy with the image use there.

Isnt it funny how a person's view is skewed depending on their actual interest in a given subject? Yes it is, and it is also frequently observable that a lack of knowledge of a subject can lead to blind spots in understanding why an article is the way it is. I've striven to be mindful of these points throughout. I have made no decrees, nor do I consider my opinion the only one that matters. When I talk about what my view is, I mean to qualify my remarks in just this way, likewise when i ask about what i can reasonably expect in terms of response as one editor querying an issue.

Perhaps you might consider then, that you are in the minority here Accept that point to a large degree, with the caveat that there has been some movement on these issues, and also with the perhaps rather more dubious caveat that the fact this was promoted without non-free use in the article even being brought up (whatever the outcome may have been) seems to me more like a failure of the FAC process than an indication that there was no problem.

Whether the answers are to your satisfaction or not is a different matter Largely accept this point also, though i think there is a degree of engagement that we can reasonably expect as editors when we query something, and that we had not reached such a point. YMMV, obviously.

BK Heh. I'm not Black Kite. In fact I've never had a registered account here, a fact that has recently been ascertained as almsot certainly true to the satisfaction of a number of editors, Elonka among them.

Please accept that i'm not interested in making this fine article worse, only "better" (in the limited sense of more compliant). 86.44.27.87 (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

When you remove images without discussion (as you did so originally), dismiss other people's arguments as invalid because you don't agree, and persist on trying to gain an outcome despite it going against everyone else, then you are putting out a message that your opinion is the only one that matters. If everyone here wanted to get rid of the images, then I would concede, but it is seeming like you have no intention of letting this drop until you get what you want. I'm interested to know what you next step is if you fail to gain the outcome you want here?

I dont really care about what images you use in the hip hop article and I certainly dont want to criticise your hard work on the article, it's very good. I am also not the kind of editor who would ever take it upon themself to eliminate an article's visial aids based on my own subjective interpretation of their importance (unless they were quite clearly copyright violations), but nevertheless, I feel my arguments are valid. I was making the point that we all have different ways of looking at things. Your interpretation of the images here is not mine, whilst my interpretation of the images in the hip hop article is not shared by you. But that's fine, I can accept that, despite disagreeing with you, yet you dont seem to be willing to do the same.GG^Moan 20:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not persisting, I've already moved on the frying pan pic, "allowed" the infobox pic, and am going to concede the leaving prison pic in reply to tramp below, on reflecting on you and tramp being wedded to it, and my own thoughts. I still find the marriage, slapping, and Dot pics unnecessary, and would hope to gain agreement on those without widening the discussion, something I doubt I have the stomach for, since none of us get paid for this. You agree to the Dot and slapping pics being less than necessary, Tramp agrees to the slapping pic being less than necessary. That's where we are now.

I was after something more than (what i saw as) a boilerplate reply, something that admits the possibility that there might be something to discuss, and shows some argument and some flexibility. I'm getting that now and i'm a lot happier. Maybe I'm slow, but it's not so hard a process, is it?

Thanks for your kind words on the other article, given in these circumstances especially, they are very much appreciated. 86.44.27.87 (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My two cents: the infobox image and the 1985 image illustrate what the character looked like at the start and end of her appearances in the serial, so should stay. The frying pan picture should stay as it is an iconic scene used in almost every documentary ever discussing Pauline, as it illustrates her domineering personality and is part of the Mrs Hewitt storyline. The picture of Arthur and Pauline, as Gungadin said, illustrates the longest marriage in the soap's history, that of Pauline and Joe is discussed in the article as being Wendy Richard's reason for leaving, the picture of Pauline and Dot illustrates their famous friendship, and also Pauline's work life, the picture of Pauline dead shows her last scene, and the big, important Christmas plot of 2006, and the picture of Sonia slapping Pauline also illustrates her domineering personality over Martin, and shows the culmination of Pauline's bullying of Sonia, however, it is (in my opinion) the only disposable picture in the article. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Trampikey. I agree about keeping the infobox (i guess, at least i never sought to remove it), 1985, frying pan and death pics, FWIW. 86.44.27.87 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the Dot pic adds anything, they could just as easily be enemies looking at it, no? And a launderette is basically a launderette, as far as her place of work goes. Likewise the marriage pic, I'm still at a loss to know why it is necessary.

I concede to the arguments made about the pic about Pauline and Arthur leaving prison. I don't agree, but i concede. There does seem more than a reasonable argument for it, given the nature of their connection, and given that people cannot see the character's face within this article otherwise. I see no such need for the Dot pic and the marriage pic, might i hope for some movement on those? 86.44.27.87 (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Really the argument that the re-marriage and Dot images add to the readers understanding of the article to a degree that is significant seems unsupportable. "Dot looks like this" is close to mere local colour, it's almost completely tangential to the article. "Pauline re-married and the guy looked like this" isn't significant either. Why am I wrong about this? 86.44.27.87 (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already agreed to two being removed. I dont agree to the marriage one also being removed, and I have already given my reasons. I also believe that 6 images (as there will be) is definitely not fair use overuse for an article of this size, Captain Marvel (DC Comics) has 9, and that's an FA too.GG^Moan 23:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Logically there can be no "magic number" whereby non-free image use within an article is minimal: either each image is necessary and significantly helps us understand the article, or not. However important the re-marriage is as a plotline, or to Richard's career, the image doesn't help us understand those points. It merely directs the readers attention to those points as highly notable by dint of being illustrated with an image. That would not be a good argument for blinking text or all caps, and it's not a good argument for non-free image use. 86.44.27.87 (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion! And it's seemingly one rule for you, another for us as i've already noted. Plus, as you say, "either each image is necessary and significantly helps us understand the article, or not." And that one does in my opinion, so you'll have to make do with the removal of two images i'm afraid, and then perhaps you can go and find another article to ruin or make your mark on. This one is small fry with only a handful of active editors and even less who care about its content. Seriously, are there not more important issues on wikipedia for you to focus your energy on than persistently trying to convince us to remove one image based on your subjective opinion (that no one else seems to share)? We just do not agree with you, and the fact that you have been the only one who thinks the image is superfluous should indicate that you are wrong on this. You've succeeded in making your mark on this article, and you can feel proud of the fact that you've been victorious (if that's your thing), because we didnt want to get rid of any of the images remember? but you elimated two, so well done. What a service you provide to wikipedia. Standing ovation.GG^Moan 15:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's all very unfair. If it's your opinion that using non-free images to indicate what editorial consensus here decrees are salient points of the article, regardless of what those images add beyond that, qualifies as significantly aiding our understanding, it is not mine. How sound that consensus is and how alone I am in that opinion beyond this circle are interesting questions, but ones that I have already indicated I am loathe to explore. I continue to fool myself that many might agree with me here. Your other remarks are just plain mean. 86.44.27.87 (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, i apologise if I came over as mean, but seriously, what am I supposed to be here, grateful to you? I'm sure you've got some idea of just how much work has gone into this bloody article to get in to FA? So, you coming here trying to effectively ruin the appearance of the article by removing images that people have taken a lot of time to get hold of was never going to be welcomed now was it? If you choose to do this sort of wiki-policing, then a little resistance from editors comes with the territory.

But despite all that I feel I have been accommodating. However, i'm getting frustrated with this now, because we are going around in circles and I find this such a trivial issue, one that is taking up time that we could both spend on other things. It's just one image! If I had my way, no images would be removed. Others here have said the same, including Elonka. Despite this, we have said that you can delete two, but you still have to have the third deleted. You rightly say that we dont share the same opinion on the importance of the third image. Well, ive been saying that all along, glad we are now on the same page here. What to do then? Well, seeing as three editors, as opposed to one (you), have said that they feel that image should be kept in, it makes sense to me that you just let the matter drop, go with consensus, be happy that you've rid the article of two evil fairuse images, and we can both move on. I will go ahead and remove the two for you, hoping that this discussion can end.GG^Moan 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Sorry about the ill-feeling. I guess all the work, scrutiny and demands on your time up to and including me are fun by-products of being a principal author of one of Wikipedia's finest articles. Which doesn't seem exactly right, but doesn't seem exactly wrong either. Not that I've ever managed to write one myself. 86.44.27.87 (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's ok, and I apologise for getting tetchy. This article has just been one headache after another. If it was paper, I would burn it, because i'm sick of the sight of it :) I'm sure you have a great shot at getting your hip hop article to FA and you seem to remain calm under pressure so that's a good start, because the FA process is one major stressor. I doubt i'll ever nominate an article I heavily contributed for FA again because of that. Too many people on wikipedia like to pick holes in other people's work, and while constructive criticism is never a bad thing, many of the more prominent FAC reviewers seem to just take pleasure in putting others down in an incredibly pompous way. Like they are laughing at you, almost. There's not enough praise or support given on wikipedia, which is a shame, because like you say, we're all doing this for free and i'm sure most of us try our best to do good.GG^Moan 15:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There are problems with tense throughout the article due to the fact that both the character and the actress who played her are dead. We need to be careful to to distinguish between actions in specific shows ("in the January 20, 2000 episode, Pauline does X") vs what she was or did or represented in the series as a whole, and what Richards said about her while she was alive. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, in my opinion anything describing plot in an OOU fashion should be in past. Present is for pure plot description. Unfortunately, this mix of tenses was a result of the FA, done by a user to appease one of the reviewers.GunGagdin^Moan 22:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is currently in the queue to be Wikipedia's "Featured Article" later this month. Currently there's no image that's lined up for the mainpage, because Wikipedia can only use one that's freely licensed, not anything that's "fair use". Can anyone figure out an image we might use that could be freely licensed? --Elonka 04:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what we could use. We do have a few free EastEnders-related images, but not one of Wendy Richard, and I don't think anything else would be appropriate. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What is available? If it's iconic "EastEnders", it might still be helpful. The current blurb looks like this, which is a bit barren. Or maybe we could track down a free image of Richard, even if she wasn't specifically in character? --Elonka 18:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

File:EE tv1.png cant we use this one? GunGagdin^Moan 18:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, shall I go ahead and add it? --Elonka 18:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The WikiProject icon I created? Doesn't seem right to me. An image isn't absolutely necessary. A free picture of Wendy Richard would be better but there are none. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's better than nothing and will be recognisible as the EE credits to most UK readers at least. I agree, a free image of Wendy would be better, but failing that, I think the logo will do. I think an image for the front page will make it stand out. Speaking for myself, I dont tend to notice chunks of writing on the main page, it's the images that make me check a feautured page.GunGagdin^Moan 23:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that something is better than nothing... But I'll leave it to the EE WikiProject folks to decide. --Elonka 23:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What if we cropped the NASA image and had it without the television? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeh that'd work.GunGagdin^Moan 00:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope so. It's just the TV part of the image that puts me off. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless anyone has a better suggestion from the gallery. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we crop the EE sign from this photo File:EastEnders set 3.jpg and use that? Or does that still count as a fair use image, seeing as it's a photo of a copyrighted image? Equally, this one of the Queen Vic may be good File:Queen Victoria, EastEnders.jpg but not necessarily relevant to Pauline.GunGagdin^Moan 14:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that might be a derivative image, meaning it's copyrighted and so even the original could be put up for deletion. I don't think the Queen Vic picture would be right for an article about Pauline. I wonder if any image experts could create a picure of the river that looks like the opening titles... AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple days to go... Any progress on image? --Elonka 15:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm, no. I don't think it would make sense to use an image of the Thames. No free images of Wendy Richard have emerged in the last couple of weeks. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I know I must add "fair use" rationale to this article. However, I could not figure out where to insert this image. --George Ho (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Why bother adding it at all? The article already has 6 non-free images, we don't need any more. If you feel it's a better image for the infobox, then we have people who could sort out a perfectly good rationale for you - Frickative, GSorby and others do this kind of thing all the time. –anemoneprojectors– 14:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this could be used as the characters picture in the infobox, if you get the rational sorted out, that is. MayhemMario 17:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made it the infobox picture along with a suitable caption. GSorby – Ping! 17:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've often thought that this article has too many non-free images in use. I think you should talk about which are really needed.Rain the 1 18:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The prison image maybe? Not a great image, definetly keep her death one, :) MayhemMario 18:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how any of them help other than an old appearance - Pauline dead in snow could be replaceable by text, so could Pauline getting married to Joe and so on.Rain the 1 18:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the file names to the title of this section. Also, I have added rationale. You can use {{db-g7}} on File:Pauline Fowler.jpg if you want. --George Ho (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the change to your image name. The image that was being used before contains all of the previous revisions uploaded and they can easily be restored if need be. Plus the licensing and rationale were incorrect. We use this format for soap article image pages. Thanks, GSorby – Ping! 22:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand; my licensing and rationale were incorrect? How? I did my best to present the difference between real and fictional person, but... maybe I must ask WP:Media copyright questions if you disagree with my edits then. —George Ho (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually think you could argue for the inclusion of Pauline hitting Arthur with a frying pan image being included of all the images, as there is critical commentary for it. I think we could possibly use an early image of Pauline in the launderette to potray her in the 80s, because it also depicts her working in the launderette, and there is commentary for that. This image would work, instead of the head shot we have, and it's also better quality GunGagdin^Moan 02:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have replace a description of File:Pauline Fowler.jpg with my own description from another file. Any objections, please don't hesistate to speak. I will upload the 1985 image of Pauline to my own file page then. --George Ho (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have uploaded this file, but I have not added this image to this article yet. Can anyone help me add a rationale before I add this file to a section of her marriage with Arthur? --George Ho (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure this file qualifies WP:NFCC#8? Because I don't. GSorby – Ping! 01:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I must be honest here: well, I tried to present the significance of fictional characters. Nevertheless, I inserted both real and fictional people in the description, and I don't treat my files as if they are merely images of fictional characters, as File:Pauline Fowler.jpg currently is, no offense. File:Wendy Richard Pauline Fowler BBC 2006.jpg acknowledges the real and fictional, but it is considered incorrect. "Contextual significance": How is this file insignificant? I was trying to present a general idea of Pauline Fowler and Arthur Fowler. Sometimes, I still don't know what else to do if it violates NFCC#8. I'm sure it doesn't, right? --George Ho (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Only essential images will pass fair use rules, and as much as I would like a Pauline and Arthur picture, we cant really justify the inclusion of this one George Ho.GunGagdin^Moan 02:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't essential, is it? So what qualifies as essential? --George Ho (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Good question. Arguably, no image is essential for any article on wikipedia, and some users on here are trying to enforce that by getting rid of all copyrighted images. Luckily, this hasnt happened yet. But we have to be careful with the amount we include. Each copyrighted image that's included needs strong justification. We can argue that without an image depicting Pauline, users' understanding of the topic would be hindered. And, as she appeared for 22 years and her appearance altered somewhat, we can likely justify the image of her from 1985. Any other image, including decoration of Pauline and Arthur as a couple would be vetoed almost instantly. Naysayers would say, 'why is that essential for understanding of the article?". Unless there is critical commentary of a specific copyrighted image or scene that cannot be conveyed adequately with words alone? But I dont think this image of Pauline and Arthur qualifies, sadly.GunGagdin^Moan 02:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If this image doesn't qualify as fair use for this article, how about a photo still of Arthur Fowler alone? Would that be essential? --George Ho (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it would not be deemed essential in this article, just essential in the article named Arthur Fowler. The only way you can get away with decorating this page is by using free images. If you happened to have a picture of Bill Treacher, that could be used. But a copyrighted image of Arthur Fowler, taken by the BBC would not be considered 'fair use' in Pauline's article.GunGagdin^Moan 03:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want an idea of how we have attempted to illusrate an article using fair use (copyrighted images) and free use images (non copyrighted images) take a look at Ken Barlow.GunGagdin^Moan 03:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have added rationale for this image. Does it pass NFCC#8? If so, may I add it to "Marriage to Arthur" section? --George Ho (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have acquired a photo of her holding MBE Award, but I wonder if you have approval to have it added in the "Reception" section of this article. --George Ho (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we have enough non-free images in this article. –anemoneprojectors– 14:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if this couple meets WP:GNG and would guarantee their own article. I tried to find sources that determine their own notability, independence from EastEnders, Pauline Fowler herself, and Arthur Fowler himself, in Google. Haven't tried Free Library yet. --George Ho (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point as they both have their own articles. If they were not individually notable enough then it would be a good idea (see Ferreira family, Bruno and Luisa di Marco) but they are, so it's pointless duplication. –anemoneprojectors– 13:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What about their own romance together, like Sam and Diane? Sure, Sam Malone and Diane Chambers exist, but their own relationship is notable per WP:GNG. There are Erica Kane and Dimitri Marick and Erica Kane. --George Ho (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What could we say in an article about their relationship that we couldn't say in their own articles? We already have the "Marriage to Arthur" section here. I can't help but feel this would be The Secret Mitchell all over again. A duplicate of an existing article. –anemoneprojectors– 13:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What existing article? Anyway, there must be a real-world reception and writing development that could warrant a separate article. Otherwise, good point without reception and development. --George Ho (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The Secret Mitchell is basically a duplicate of Danielle Jones (EastEnders) only with less info. It was created by a non-WP:EE member and hasn't really been cleaned up by us. An article on Pauline and Arthur would surely be a duplicate of both Pauline Fowler and Arthur Fowler. –anemoneprojectors– 14:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Reading WP:Abundance and redundancy, an essay about duplicating content into one article for easier reading influnced by WP:article size. Though not a policy or guideline, it is helpful for people who do not need to read Pauline Fowler or Arthur Fowler for just their relationship together. An article that could duplicate content about relationship could fit my common sense. If that wouldn't work, what about "List of couples of EastEnders"? --George Ho (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

George Ho, your suggestions are getting a bit out of proportion. WikiProject EastEnders is a encyclopedia, not a fansite. GSorby – Ping 15:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a bad idea if I ever heard one. Another article on them - It would be a fork at best. No thank you. If anyone wants to read about their relationship, they are more than welcome to visit the appropriate section in Pauline's article.Rain the 1 16:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Rain, GSorby and Anemone P.GunGagdin^Moan 19:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay... How is "Arthur and Pauline Fowler" less of an encyclopedia material and more of a fansite-based? If that's a bad idea, why besides being a potential duplicate of one article, less encyclopedic, and more fanatic? Would creating a disambiguation page help? --George Ho (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that I'm not seeing a reason for a separate article. Having articles on the individual characters is sufficient. If it's necessary to have a separate "Arthur and Pauline" section, and there were sufficient sources to justify it, maybe it could be added to one of the existing articles? I mean, what needs to be covered, that isn't already being covered? --Elonka 23:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If neither an article nor a disambiguation, a redirect then to either Arthur Fowler or Pauline Fowler#Marriage to Arthur? Would that help? --George Ho (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Errr, no! As if anyone is ever seriously going to tyoe into wikipedia "Arthur and Pauline Fowler". They will type either Arthur Fowler, or Pauline Folwer and get either article. You are talking about creating a totally pointless redirect. No to redirect. No to separate article. No to disambiguation. And No to any other option you come up with on this topic after this post.GunGagdin^Moan 00:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Gungadin, please. Deep calming breaths. :) George, sure, I think a redirect would be fine, and a good compromise. Redirects are cheap, and don't harm anything. I'd say pointing it to the marriage section would make sense. --Elonka 00:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes the redirect was fine. I have now tagged it as part of WP:EE. –anemoneprojectors– 14:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap? They must be because we now have Arthur Fowler and Pauline Fowler, Arthur and Pauline Fowler, Pauline and Arthur Fowler, Pauline Beale and Arthur Fowler and Pauline Fowler and Arthur Fowler.Rain the 1 11:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

We also have Arthur and Pauline, which I'm especially sceptical about because the Fowlers are not the only couple with these names, not even necessarily the most common. Arthur Frommer and his wife seem at least as likely. The other redirects, while pretty useless in my opinion, at least do no harm except cost a little disk space. Huon (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A bit pointless to create all of those redirects if you ask me. However, I've taken a few minutes of the precious time that I do get to come online these days to tag them all. –anemoneprojectors– 15:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirects harm nothing. If someone wants to create redirects from every possible misspelling of a name, let them. It's not hurting the encyclopedia in anyway. Indeed, if you look around some areas with foreign language names, especially in Arabic or Armenian or something, you can find many variants of spelling, punctuation, and formatting in their list of redirects. It's all good. --Elonka 16:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Except when they make other articles more difficult to find and do not lead to what people searching for that term might be looking for. That's what I meant about Arthur and Pauline. Hard as it might be to believe, not everybody looking for that combination of names might be interested in the EastEnders... Huon (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The way that would be handled, is if there's something else that "Arthur and Pauline" should direct to, then it can easily be turned into a disambiguation page: "Arthur and Pauline may refer to <list of links>." But if no one's complaining, then it's not an issue, and it's trivial to fix. --Elonka 17:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It is absolutely ludicrous not to include Lucy, Peter and Bobby. Pauline was an important part of the formative years - she was effectively the closest thing they had to a grandmother when Kathy was in South Africa. There was a strong notable connection. If you want to destroy the link between the two characters, then remove the 'Relatives' section altogether. I would include David Wicks seeing as he spent sometime on the Square whilst Pauline was around, in fact the whole storyline about who ran the fruit-and-veg stall was about an internal rivalry between the Fowlers and the Beales.--86.135.53.139 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, nope and nope. Some editors want to add everyone and their dog on here. What major storylines did Pauline share with any of these characters? Bleaney (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

He makes a good point. Pauline was around an awful fault when Peter, Lucy and Bobby were younger. She always babysat, Christmas at her house, the storyline over Pete Beale's death, Kathy's death she looked after them. Certain editors should realise that.--195.171.221.67 (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

But what major storylines were they both involved in with Pauline? None. Just coz she babysat them off screen does not make them a notable link. Bleaney (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but she babysat them ON-screen, she looked after them and on occasion took them to school. She was involved in the storylines surrounding their birth. They always spent Christmas, family dinners and birthdays with their 'Auntie Pauline'. That is a notable link, please stick with the facts.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

On screen or off, it's still only babysitting. Spending time with someone is not a notable connection in relation to this work of fiction. –anemoneprojectors– 12:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct, babysitting somebody off screen is not a notable connection. Even on screen it isn't. –anemoneprojectors– 22:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair there was the Kathy's death storyline, the Bobby Beale storyline, the Peter Beale storyline and when Cindy kidnapped the Beale boys. Pauline is close family, she was always around.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That's still only babysitting, right? And doesn't explain your revert that added back the characters Betty, Flo, Mark Jr, David, Elizabeth, Bobby and Nellie. Please discuss BEFORE adding characters to ANY infobox in ANY article. Otherwise you may be blocked, or the pages may be fully protected and only administrators will be able to edit them. –anemoneprojectors– 16:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not only babysitting. It is Christmas, staying with her when Ian was away,spending family parties with her, dinners - they even called her 'Auntie Pauline'. That is a notable connection. Betty was the namesake of Pauline's dog and came to the funeral. If Clive could be mentioned on Phil's infobox, then Betty should be on Pauline's. Nellie, not to mention her is ridiculous - they lived together for YEARS. Elizabeth came to stay in Walford, with the entire Beale family. David Wicks was brought in over the storyline over Pete's death and was sort of disowned by the Beales - including her - because of what he did to Ian. Bobby is included with the Beale siblings. Flo is the same principle with Betty, there for Lou's funeral and Civvy Street. Personally, I believe that Mark Jr should be included but I'm not fussed. But there is no method to your madness.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, spending time with someone isn't a notable connection. Calling someone "Auntie Pauline" doesn't mean they should be included in the infobox. Betty was a one-off character and isn't even notable, so there can't be a notable connection on any level. If any of these characters had a notable connection with Pauline, there would be some mention of those characters in the storyline section. Funny how you've gone back to personal attacks again. –anemoneprojectors– 12:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually OK with Nellie being there (she was a quite significant relative for a time) and David (who was her nephew and treated as such after a while, including giving advice IIRC). I'm also OK for Elizabeth to be there as her niece for much the same reason. The rest I have removed again, though, per AP. Stephenb (Talk) 09:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth isn't significant to Pauline - if she was she'd be mentioned in the storylines. Same for David. I would say same for Nellie too but I do feel there was possibly a more significant relationship there. What kind of advice was given in relation to David? Who gave advice to whom? Simply being a niece or nephew isn't a reason for someone to be included. –anemoneprojectors– 09:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Er, she is. She was there in 1988. I will fight tooth and nail for Lucy, Peter and Bobby to be on her section for the reasons that I set out. I do not think you have been watching the show for very long. Firstly, do recognise that some characters have been around for years therefore there are plenty of relatives who have come on and off screen who they have relationships with but they may not have anymore for plenty of reasons. Now, you know I am right about the Beale kids but on David - if you actually remembered the storyline surrounding the aftermath of Pete Beale's death where Pauline and Arthur became heads of the Beale and the Fowlers, then you would not been trying to spread such uninformative nonsense. There was a split in the family between the Beales and the Fowlers about who should get the stall. Watch old episodes and listen to some advice.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You are edit warring again AngieWattsFan...Bleaney (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pauline Fowler. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130128231335/http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2006/07/a-raven-leaves-the-tower-walford-style/ to http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2006/07/a-raven-leaves-the-tower-walford-style/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070419054241/http://pages.prodigy.net/glc/wrhp/html/wr_rt9012.htm to http://pages.prodigy.net/glc/wrhp/html/wr_rt9012.htm

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) 03:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pauline Fowler. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070822154826/http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/primetime/british_soap_awards to http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/primetime/british_soap_awards
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209002408/http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline%3Dwhat-a-kym-back-%26method%3Dfull%26objectid%3D19206609%26siteid%3D93463-name_page.html to http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline%3Dwhat-a-kym-back-%26method%3Dfull%26objectid%3D19206609%26siteid%3D93463-name_page.html

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) 15:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pauline Fowler. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929091846/http://ww2.aegis.org/news/bbc/2005/BB050401.html to http://ww2.aegis.org/news/bbc/2005/BB050401.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/123/123791_hilda_ogden_voted_the_best.html

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) 19:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pauline Fowler. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070112032600/http://www.lse.co.uk/TVNews.asp?Code=XV36477P&headline=sonia_issued_warrant_for_paulines_murder to http://www.lse.co.uk/TVNews.asp?Code=XV36477P&headline=sonia_issued_warrant_for_paulines_murder

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) 09:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Pauline fowler death.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

This article suffers from a lot of sourcing issues, for example. It is cited as "Wiggins, p. 118" and it is not linked directly to the references at all. It has mostly been using inconclusive sources such as Sunday Mirror, The Stage, and Daily Record. Some sources might be reliable, but the contents are low quality. But sources like this are low quality, and most of them are pretty much dead like ref 3 and other BBC sources (there's other sources that are much also dead) + questionable sources such as ref 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 71, 72, 73, 75, 81, 83 (unreliable), 88 and 89. So, this article definitely needs a lot of work in order to survive modern FA criteria. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)