Talk:Danielle Jones (EastEnders)

Date of Death

Please can I just point out that the episode WAS set on the 2nd of April not the 1st as when Peggy and Archie were planning the wedding they set the date for the second. Alex250P (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Death

Danielle died tonight in a heart-breakingly brilliant episode. Danielle steps out in the road, not knowing Janine was speeding up the road in her sports car. A heart-sinking moment as the poor little girl is thrown over the bonnet and lands with a thud on the road. Her inconsolable mother Ronnie (who only knew Danielle was her daughter for one night) cradles her daughter in the road as Janine, shaken, stands there, looking what she has done. Stacey gets help from the Vic and Roxy runs to Danielle's aid only to realise that the 19-year-old has died in her mother's arms. Whoever wrote that episode deserves a medal as the pure emotion of it has nearly brought me to tears. Shakespeare would be the only person in the universe who could captivate such tragedy in an hour episode. But does danielle live; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noddes1993 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm that she dies? --Maurice45 (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you a clue. Danielle should have learnt the Green Cross Code!!! GunGagdin^Moan 13:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha, good one! --Maurice45 (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Tsk@spoilers. This ain't a forum! ^anemone│_projectors 19:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder who said it was. I was asking a serious question. --Maurice45 (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that ending was absoloutley awful. It was cheese on legs. I wasn't upset by the episode, in fact right at the end I was cracking my self up. It was an awful end to a good storyline. Why did she have to get killed???? So bad!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.37.220 (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, just saying that some people don't want to know. There are better places to discuss that kind of thing. But then again I talk about spoilers all the time on Wikipedia :) I'm not bothered! ^anemone│_projectors 20:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree. Things are just added randomly, without proper citations/sources. That shouldn't be allowed --Maurice45 (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Can people please stop changing the page to dead or similar, her status is currently unknown as she hasnt been pronounced dead by a doctor or other certified practitioner —Preceding unsigned comment added by James2b (talk • contribs) 19:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In a preview of tomorrows episode the character IS DECEASED - Digital spy says she is dead D Death —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcyc (talk • contribs) 19:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be a happy ending but this shows how eastenders keeps you suprised —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leinad13 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation that Danielle Jones died tonight in the arms of Veronica Mitchell, her biological mother. She was hit by Janine Butcher's car.Peterwill 21:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course the way somebody keeps changing "Deceased" to "Unknown" makes you think it may turn out to be one of those things where you THINK she's dead, but then it turns out she actually was only unconscious and then she wakes up (probably with some minor injuries, or maybe something really bad like severe brain damage), or something. Unless the person doesn't understand that Digital Spy's "title" for the April 3 episode, "Ronnie tries to deal with Danielle's death" pretty much confirms that she is dead! Especially for fully-protecting, or getting the page fully protected. It's OBVIOUS she's dead. She got run over, she died. It SAYS she died. Lauren even said she died.

We are all lead to believe that Danielle died but her status on her profile says "Unknown". It could mean that Danielle could be resuscitated in tonight's episode and live but the way she was hit by that car, it is unlikely that she survived. I think I don't get is why can't Danielle survive getting run over when that rat Max Branning did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noddes1993 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean here, on Wikipedia? It says unknown because the page is protected and can't be changed until later today. It'll be changed, don't worry. Danielle's Diary on the EastEnders website confirms that she's dead. ^anemone│_projectors 13:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A source of information

An interview with Lauren Crace: It’s a long way to Walford. I can't be bothered to write anything in the article myself at the moment! ^anemone│_projectors 19:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I put a soruce of proof she was leaving and no one lisened to me (http://www.walfordwebforums.co.uk/prod/index.php?showtopic=7062) 14:22, 28 march 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir jude 100 (talk • contribs)

Some people dont seem to be able to accept it. I've never seen anything like it. GunGagdin^Moan 14:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has taken out the information before, let me assure you, it's certainly not about 'not accepting it' as you bizarrely claim, it's about providing a decent and reliable source, which "Walford Web Forum" is not. It is an unofficial fansite. I hope that clears it up! Sky83 (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasnt referring to you, there have been countless editors removing sourced information about this character's departure for many, many weeks. Frickative sourced the information to a magazine, so what a forum has to do with anything, I dont know. Plus, that link Sir Jude gave is just a scan of a magazine, obviously it came from a published source, if we're going to start getting pedantic about it then perhaps you should have requested that the user cited the magazine as the source instead of engaging in edit warring. but if you choose to take offence then so be it.GunGagdin^Moan 21:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't taking offence, I was merely pointing out that it's not all about people not being able to accept it. The magazine source was a last resort frankly, because this this article is apparently attracting either vandals or misguided fans, to put it nicely. In an ideal world, all references would be outstandingly brilliant, but that was better than nothing at the time. Since the Walford Web Forum was the 'source' at hand in this conversation, that was what I was commenting on, nothing else. I've seen scarcely few decent sources here at all. Strictly speaking, Digital Spy is not good enough either, and that's been used more than once on soap articles. Don't take offence at anything I have said, I'm just sick of seeing rubbish on this article because people either rush to write something the minute it happens, or they just want to add rumours without sources. Best wishes. Sky83 (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We're on the same page; I agree with you. All I can say is that I genuinely wasn't referring to any of your edits when I made that comment the other week. You're right to request reliable sources and information about her death etc should definitely have been removed prior to today, particularly as it hadnt even happened on-screen. I was referring to the fact that people were disputing that the character was departing and constantly removing that, and this was sourced by a trusted editor. But anyway, seems like this is just a little bit of confusion, and I apologise if I offended you, I really didnt mean to.GunGagdin^Moan 21:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe that some people still can't accept it. She's dead people, get over it! AnemoneProjectors (what?) 09:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(Uncivil title removed)

Wikipedia is supposed to be based on fact not supposition. Even though this is a fictional character until events become fact in the show they shouldnt be changed on here. It may very well be that Danielle died in tonights episode, but this has not been made clear as a FACT yet (Ronnie said that her 'baby's dead'). Can we please stop updating and editing the page to what we think might be the fact when its made clear tomorrow. James2b (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't insult editors, and please add new sections to the bottom of the page. And please read the above link from Digital Spy. ^anemone│_projectors 20:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe change the article text "Danielle died in her mother's arms." to "fell into unconsciousness"??

Ronnie ad her hand where Danielle's pulse wason her neck, she felt her die. I think we can have that scream of "SHE'S DEAD!" as a confirmation she died. PXK ^T /_C 20:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Legally and officially you are not dead until pronounced so by either a doctor or other qualified practitioner. Regardless of what digital spy write on their website, this event has not happened yet in the screen episodes of the programme, therefore she cannot be officially dead. James2b (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a television show. She's a fictional character. The real-world law has nothing to do with it, and the article is reliably sourced attesting to her on-screen death and departure. Frickative 20:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But wikipedia's rules on factual and sourcable information still apply. Show me your verified source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James2b (talk • contribs) 21:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The verified source is that we saw her die tonight! She closed her eyes and everything, did you even watch the episode??!! Alex250P (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see, so everyone that you see closing their eyes and 'everything' is dying?... perhaps I should sleep with one eye open tonight. She probably is dead, I dont even care that much about if she is dead or alive or an alien or about to reveal the answer to life the universe and everything..... Its about maintaining a good quality and reliable source of information. Presuming something is not the same as something being fact, me thinking something is probably going to happen in the future (her being pronounced dead) isnt the same as it happening. Me stating that im going to make a cup of tea in 6 1/2 minutes doesnt mean it will happen. Its about reliable sourced/cited information not hearsay or supposition. James2b (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The page is protected until tomorrow so can we just wait until then? By then, she definitely will be dead. Oh, and it's 42. ^anemone│_projectors 21:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Danielle's Diary says she's dead. That's a reliable source. ^anemone│_projectors 12:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Secret Mitchell

Does anyone think this article is necessary or is it just a duplicate of this one, as Danielle is indeed the "secret Mitchell"? ^anemone│_projectors 21:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In it's current state it seems unnecessary, but provided the editor is willing to put work into expanding the OOU sections beyond just a copypasta of the development from here, I think it could be feasible. There's undoubtedly going to be a decent whack of info in tomorrow's Revealed episode, and while I'll be adding all the Danielle pertinent stuff here as I want to get it finished and take it to GA, I know there are interviews at the moment with Sam Janus and Larry Lamb at least, which discuss the motivations of the other characters involved, in a way that might not be explicitly relevant to this page alone. It's a tough call. I'd like to see the article utilizing sources beyond just the Crace ones I've compiled here before leaning one way or the other. Frickative 21:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, he says he's willing to expand it, so I'll give him a chance to. ^anemone│_projectors 21:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont think it's necessary. I think the stuff could all be included in the individual character pages. But let's do some watchful waiting, see how it progresses..21:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We could always work on it ourselves... ^anemone│_projectors 21:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed it hasn't really changed since April 2009... AnemoneProjectors 03:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the only difference between that and this the "Aftermath" paragraph? Frickative 06:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably. Full of spelling errors though. AnemoneProjectors 13:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Re-iterating my support I'm in support of redirecting it here, then. 19 months on it's still just duplication of existing content, making it a redundant content fork. Frickative 17:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Development/Reception

Just saving some stuff here until the article is unprotected. Hope that's okay. If I put it in one of my sandboxes I'm liable never to find it again. Frickative 22:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's great, but your "Santer" reference quote is also posted here so perhaps it was given there first. ^anemone│_projectors 17:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

More than likely! I was just working through the Google news feed, which doesn't pick up the BBC for some reason, so I'll swap it out :) Frickative 18:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I RSS the EastEnders news page so get updates pretty quick. And I have a Google News Alert for "EastEnders" :) ^anemone│_projectors 18:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Name

It would be interesting to find out from Eastenders writers why Ronnie continued to call her Danielle until her death and never once called her Amy as one would have expected —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs) 18:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

So find out. ^anemone│_projectors 18:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, too late. Sorry! ^anemone│_projectors 18:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

But she's never been none as Amy to anyone else, only to Ronnie. Her name was probably changed to Danielle from the moment she was adopted. It's like Rebecca, Martin and Sonia. When Rebecca was born she was Chloe. Then they gave her up for adoption and when they got her back years later she was Rebecca. But Martin and Sonia didn't choose to start calling her Chloe again. 92.11.19.202 (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's because they don't want to confuse Ronnie's Amy with Roxy's Amy.--Spock a (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Navigation template

Could someone please explain the reasoning behind removing the main EastEnders navigation template from the article just because Danielle is a past rather than present character? It seems to me that just because she isn't in the show any more, there's no reason that a reader would have any less reason to require the navigational aid than if she was still in it. Broadly speaking this goes for all past characters - many are the times I've been frustrated to read a page, only to then have to search about for the article I want next, when the template would have it all there at the bottom. Frickative 17:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the template should remain, and indeed be there for all characters. We used to remove it when characters left because they weren't on the template but I realised a week or two ago that that doesn't matter and the template should be there. So yeah, it should be there on every page. ^anemone│_projectors 17:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It would be helpful and seems really silly to remove it just because the character isn't current. The template is still relevant and useful. Sky83 (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Funeral

Is it necessary to mention her funeral at all in the article? It's not really significant in relation to Danielle's storyline, is it? Only for Ronnie's, really. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 23:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Best soap death

in an internet poll. Is this notable? http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Showbiz/EastEnders-stars-telly-poll/article-939494-detail/article.html AnemoneProjectors (what?) 18:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

He's another source for it: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/showbiz/a154329/boyle-eastenders-death-top-new-poll.html AnemoneProjectors (what?) 17:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Danielle Jones (EastEnders)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Comments by Dalejenkins

This article needs MUCH work done to it, but it could be achieved. Strike and {{done}} things that have been achieved and add a comment underneath them if there's any queries. Once all this has been sorted, I'll be back to add more comments. Dalejenkins | 18:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Any input on this, Dale? It's been over ten days since the review was opened, and nothing can really move on without a response from you. Frickative 16:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I left a message on Dale's talk page a couple of weeks ago asking if he intended to continue with this review, which he's now removed without response [1]. Any thoughts on where to go from here? Frickative 18:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think relist. Hopefully someone who knows what they're talking about will do the review next time.GunGagdin^Moan 18:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

General

• "Danielle Jones (née Amy Mitchell) is a fictional character" should be "Danielle Jones (née Amy Mitchell) was a fictional character"
  • I'm afraid I disagree with this. Just because the character has left the show doesn't mean she ceases to be a fictional character from the show. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 19:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Danielle is and always will be a fictional character, regardless of her on-screen death. Frickative 19:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• "Weymouth" in the "Creation" section should be wikilinked and "Mitchell Week" should be in italics. Also, who dubbed it "Mitchell Week"? Done
• "Crace accepted the role whilst still in her third year at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art" should be "Crace accepted the role whilst still in her third and final year at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art" to avoid confusion Done
• In the "Creation" section is says "Danielle, would be introduced to EastEnders as the love interest of fellow newcomer Callum Monks...the show's producers attempted to deliberately deceive the audience into believing Danielle was nothing more than a new friend for Stacey Slater". This is a contradiction and "Stacey Slater" should be wikilinked Done

References

• The article relies too heavily on "The Secret Mitchell" source. This is a primary source and more reliable, third party sources should be used instead per WP:RS
  • EastEnders itself is the primary source. "The Secret Mitchell" is a secondary source, and largely the same as using a DVD commentary to supplement the article, used for the most part in discussing the development of storylines. The most insightful information on this is naturally going to come directly from the show's producers/writers/actors, those directly involved in said storylines. Frickative 19:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Reference 7 (BARB) hasn't been formatted Done
• References 18 and 19 (the Soap magazines) should be replaced with more reliable sources - these publications rely on sensationalism to sell issues and bring in viewers, therefore failing WP:RS
  • The references are supporting direct comments from the actor. They're not editorial or opinion pieces but interviews, so I don't see a problem utilising them as a source for this purpose. Frickative 19:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• All references from The Sun or The Mirror should be replaced - they fail WP:RS
  • In all the GAs I've had passed to date, no editor has ever stated that WP:RS discounts usage of the Sun or Mirror. Can you back up this claim? Frickative 19:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Try replacing some of the BBC references with reliable, third-party sources

Thanks for all your effort with this Dale, but I dont think your comments about the references are fair. What evidence is there that the soap mags are unreliable, or the Sun and the Mirror for that matter? Tabloids are permitted as sources per wiki guidelines, and unless the information included is disputed, then there is no reason to suggest that they're unreliable. The Secret Mitchell programme may be a primary source, but it's the best place to get information from the storyline. It's no different than using DVD commentary. If they are giving details about conceptualisation and development, then there is absolutely no reason that it should not be used because they're the ones who created and developed the character; therefore a primary source is appropriate. Better that than speculation from an unrelated media outlet. Just my opinion.GunGagdin^Moan 19:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Images

• Keep just one of the two images of Danielle and Ronnie Done
• Have an image that protrays another aspect of the character's time on the programme (one of Danielle and Stacey or Callum, for instance) Done
• All images should be of MUCH lower quality - see Pauline Fowler Done

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Danielle Jones (EastEnders)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

OK, I am sorry that the first review was abandoned. I shall be reviewing this. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Well written, no discernible grammatical errors. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with MOS. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Well referenced. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: All references check out and are WP:RS in my opinion. I fixed ref #38 as the URL had changed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

   C. No original research: I see no evidence of WP:OR. The storyline plot is not referenced but that is usual for articles about teleplays, films or novels. I assume WP:GF and that the storyline section is accurate. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: The article is broad and thorough in its coverage. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

   B. Focused: .... and remains focussed admirably. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias: The article adheres to WP:NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc: I find no evidence of edit warring, vandalism has been promptly reverted. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Suitable images have been sourced. Images have suitable fair use rationales. They have not been challenged, so should be OK. They may be challenged if Wikipedia copyright protocols change, but I see no objection to their use in low resolution format to illustrate the themes of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Suitably used images, good captions provided. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: I have no hesitation in passing this as a Good Article. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a video of a man masturbating on this page!!!!!!!!!!

I dunno how to get rid of it. Hahaha! GunGagdin^Moan 02:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit to the template that caused the image to appear. I have also blocked the user involved. --Bsadowski1 02:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

OMG that was horrible! The {{'s}} template is now protected as well. –AnemoneProjectors– 09:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw that last night. I Wonder what prompts people to do such things.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 17:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)