Talk:The Queen Victoria

[Untitled]

Oh that's a shame, the piccie was removed! I will try and find a screen shot of it. Gungadin 00:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Steve Owen's share

"Peggy was forced to sell the Vic, in early 2001, after Frank did a runner and left her penniless. Peggy was shocked when Sharon returned as the new co-owner of the pub, with business partner Steve Owen.

In 2002, Sharon sold her share back to the Mitchells"

So what happened to Steve Owen's share? Does Mel still own part of the Vic that she inherited when Steve died? Or did he sell it and it isn't mentioned in the article? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

He sold his half to Phil in 2001 when he was trying to raise funds to pay the ransom on Mel, who had been kidnapped by Dan. That was when Phil moved back in with Peggy and Jamie and lived with Sharon. It was reported in the press at the time that Barbara Windsor was not happy about relinquishing ownership of the Vic indefinitely. There were rumours about a feud between Letitia Dean and Windsor over who should get the pub, so they apparently allowed them both to have it. lol Gungadin 22:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I added it in! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Consitency

I'd like to see some consitency on how the pub is referred to in articles. I think the first mention should refer to it by "The Queen Victoria public house" so people are aware that it's a pub. After that, we should refer to it as The Queen Victoria, not The Vic or The Queen Vic. If we want to call it "The Vic" then we would need to explain in the first mention that it's referred to that way, so readers know what we're talking about. We shouldn't assume that everyone reading our articles watches the show. I've also seen it called "the Vic", but "The" should be uppercase as it's definitely part of the name. Any comments or suggestions? ^anemone│_projectors 18:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the second option, because it will be annoying and longwinded to type The Queen Victoria each time. Can't we have in brackets at the top (also known as The Vic, Queen Vic etc)? Gungadin♦ 19:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Like "The Queen Victoria public house (The Vic)"? I know it's mentioned here that it's also called The Queen Vic and The Vic but if we mention The Queen Victoria in an article, other than wondering if it's the actual queen, people may not realise that The Queen Victoria and The Vic are the same. I think I already did that on one article but I don't know what one or how I did it! ^anemone│_projectors 19:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I get you now, you were referring to all EE articles, right? I thought you meant just in this one. I agree with you then, we should always say that it's a public house.Gungadin♦ 21:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah in all articles. If we're going to call it "The Queen Victoria public house" one time and then "The Vic" or "The Queen Vic" every other time, which we pretty much always do, we should say it's "The Queen Victoria public house (aka The Vic)" after the first mention in all articles. Either that or always call it The Queen Victoria (mentioning public house the first time). Maybe I should have brought it up at the project page instead of here. Do you agree with that? We can incorporate it into our "collaboration" of the "month" ;) ^anemone│_projectors 01:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. Good idea.Gungadin♦ 17:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you know what I'm talking about‽‽‽ ^anemone│_projectors 19:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bit belated, sorry I didnt notice this earlier. Yes i'm sure I know what you mean now :) Gungadin♦ 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Number of bedrooms

Apparently there are five bedrooms. Peggy's, Phil's, Ben's, Roxy's and Ronnie's. ^anemone│_projectors 19:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

5!! plus a kitchen, living room and bathroom. That's more rooms than most houses have in London, and they only have a flat. Maybe they store peggy in the attic. Gungadin♦ 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I swear it changes all the time. The article says 3. I suppose if the upstairs is the same size as the pub then there's enough room for 8 rooms but the landing isn't big enough for all those doors. I think all the houses change shape, especially Pat's and the Slaters'. ^anemone│_projectors 15:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the residents section is a bit excessive. I know I wrote it, but now I think it's a bit much. Shall we just do a table? residents, years, lodgers. Could that work do you think, or would it get too complicated? Gungadin♦ 15:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it is a bit. Try a table and see how it looks :) ^anemone│_projectors 16:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok do you think like this? or something different

Date(s)	Resident(s)	Lodger(s)
1985-1988	Den Watts, Angie Watts, Sharon Watts, Roly	Simon Wicks, Pat Wicks

Gungadin♦ 17:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You know I'm not sure. Can you do the whole thing? Maybe we could just cut down the text instead? ^anemone│_projectors 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Landlords/Licensees

I've changed a small section. Phil cannot be a licensee of the Vic due to his criminal record, granted he does own part of it. If you want a comparable situation look at Coronation Street, Steve owns the Rovers, Liz us the landlady due to Steve not being able to hold a licence. This happened further back when Grant and Phil owned the Vic and Grant was married to Sharon, she became the licencee. After all, how many times have we heard Peggy yell "Get outta my pub" Douglasnicol (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Name source

I used to drink in the Queen Vic in Ealing (Now Finnegan's Wake). It was claimed that some of the script writers used to drink here whilst working across the road at ealing studios, hence the choice of names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.185.90 (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

OOU source

Queen Vic is 'most popular soap business' AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Janine, Landlady?

Was Jannine ever landlady of the Queen Vic?? She was never actually married to Archie, so it was all his? To be landlord/landlady, you have to have ownership (or part ownership) of the Vic. Angie, Pat, Chrissie, Sharon, Peggy all had legal title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junipers Liege (talk • contribs)

Junipers Liege, you're not doing a very good job at signing your posts lately! I agree, Janine wouldn't have had any legal ownership, same as Simon Wicks who was added recently. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't notice I wasn't signing them - though in my defence I had gone over 24 hours without sleep at the time. (rested now). SIGNAGTURE: ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 06:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do people even think Janine qualifies as a Landlady?? ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 22:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Because, well, I shouldn't say it but it's true – they're idiots. anemoneprojectors talk 00:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Has anything changed since this post? Why is Janine back under landladies?????

Dunno. Someone probably had a convincing edit summary. AnemoneProjectors 12:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know when The Vic, was originally founded??

Does anyone know when the Pub was acctually "built" and "founded", because it clearly can't be 1985, because the un-seen Gus and Flo Leonard were Landlord's in the 1950s, so I'm reckoning it's got to have been founded in the 1940s, may be even before that, so does anyone acctually know –217.23.166.158 (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's fictional, so it didn't exist before 1985. But "in universe" nobody knows. AnemoneProjectors 18:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Story and appearance/Landlords sections

Can we merge these two sections because they both relate to the story of the pub? AnemoneProjectors 19:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion...

there should be a new pic with the covered up queen vic showing that it is being rebuilt. Just to be realistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.3.102 (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No, because the image in use at the moment is freely licensed. We wouldn't normally replace a freely licensed image with a screenshot. Besides the Queen Vic won't be in the stages of rebuild forever, if the spoilers I've read are true, I believe that the rebuild is due to be finished shortly before Xmas --5 albert square (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty then :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.3.102 (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Owners

Is this entry solely used for people who only owned the pub and weren't landlords? That's the reason I keep removing Archie Mitchell, but I just wanted to be sure. It seems a tiny bit odd only listing a few owners when there have been others. AnemoneProjectors 00:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think it may be just better to have a "Landlord/owner" section in the "Past" bit, and then keep the "Current" as is with a separate "Owner" listing if needs be. Most landlords are the owners. It's really only Phil that screws that up. TBH I don't recall Ian ever owning the Vic. The closest he got, I thought, was through Chrissie, but as that wasn't legal... I have a vague recollection of Wilmott-Brown owning it very briefly but not enough to warrant an own section imo. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 14:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ian is there because he legally owned the Vic when he loaned all that money to Phil before Archie bought the loan from him. The Chrissie thing wasn't legal, but the Archie/Phil thing was. AnemoneProjectors 15:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Your going to have to help me on this, because I will admit I thought this whole period was utter rubbish and really wasn't paying attention. Surely though that still makes Phil the owner, or whomever Ian was loaning the money to. The bank isn't the owner of your house when you get a loan from them. If Ian was the owner, then what was Phil? They both can't "own" something using the same money, either one is or the other is surely? ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 21:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't me who said it, I just went along with it cos I don't know the law in that area and assumed whoever it was did know. Thought it was you actually lol AnemoneProjectors 21:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

NEW PIC

???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.14.237 (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I can only presume that your series of question marks means you think the picture should be updated. It's not possible because the one we have is released under a free licence and any replacement would be non-free. So until someone visits the set, photographs the new-look pub and releases the image under a free licence, the one we have will stay. AnemoneProjectors 23:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Phil, Kat and Alfie

Can we sort this out please? Phil is the landlord and Kat and Alfie are the licensees, correct? Or does being licensee allow them to be called landlords? Are they refered to as landlords in the programme? AnemoneProjectors 18:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Alfie and Kat are commonly referred to as Landlord/lady; Kat is called landlady very often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.159.107 (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The website also calls them landlord/lady. I'm happy to go with that –AnemoneProjectors– 09:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Mo Harris manager?

Mo promoted Julie Perkins last week, though it wasn't long term, and she just seems to have more authority than the other bartenders, and she is also a resident of the pub now. Would she be classed as a manager?

Only if it's mentioned that she is. Basically, Kat and Alfie weren't around so Mo took charge and asked Julie to work behind the bar. She didn't really promote her, she just used that word. Someone had to do something, so Mo did. Doesn't mean she's a manager. She hasn't been called one. –AnemoneProjectors– 18:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• Best pub on telly - JuneGloom Talk 14:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Pyromaniac Green and Cream ?

"This is later changed to a green and cream colour scheme only for Grant Mitchell (Ross Kemp) to set fire to the Queen Victoria,"

Was it necessary for the building to have a colour scheme of green and cream to have Grant Mitchell set the Queen Victoria ablaze? That would be an interesting profile to develop and understand of a pyromaniac. Or could he do it without that colour scheme? Or was it that when Grant Marshall set it ablaze it had a green and cream colour scheme? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.88.72 (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Bed Bugs and Lovers

"Instead, it was found that the source was the flat where Kat met her lover Derek Branning (Jamie Foreman)."

Kat was introduced to her lover Derek not at the flat but elsewhere so to say she "met" him there would imply that it was the place at which she was introduced to him rather than the flat at which their assignations occurred. "was meeting" is a clearer distinction.76.170.88.72 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Thank you! As I am responsible for the "met", I shall attend to it now. Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 21:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Storylines para 1 & 2

"Before EastEnders first aired the pub was owned by Ray and Lil Daniels, as revealed in Civvy Street, which is set between 1939 and 1945. Den (Leslie Grantham) and Angie Watts (Anita Dobson) were the landlords in the first episode of EastEnders in 1985, and it was said they had owned the pub for 10 years. It has been said that previous landlords were Gus and Flo Leonard, and Alf and Polly Barrett."

"When the series begins in 1985, The Queen Victoria is still owned by the brewery, Luxford & Copley, and is managed by Den and Angie......."

The continuity seems to be askew. I am approaching this as if I have never seen the episodes or programmes. What I get from this text is that the Q as revealed in Civvy Street, which is set from 1939 to 1945, is owned outright by Ray and Lil Daniels. But when E started in 1985, the Q remains in the ownership of the brewery, Luxford & Copley, and is managed by Den and Angie although it also says that Den and Angie are landlords. Does any one else see the quandary here and can offer some clarification?76.170.88.72 (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph (above) is incorrect; the second is accurate. In those days all pubs were owned by the breweries.
In Britain "landlord" has a different meaning in relation to pubs.
Thank you for drawing attention to this. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I have copy-edited as follows:

It is revealed in Civvy Street—set between 1939 and 1945—long before EastEnders first aired, that the pub was in the hands of Ray and Lil Daniels. It has been said that previous landlords were Gus and Flo Leonard, and Alf and Polly Barrett. Den (Leslie Grantham) and Angie Watts (Anita Dobson) were the landlords in the first episode of EastEnders in 1985.

When the series begins, The Queen Victoria is still owned by the brewery, Luxford & Copley. Den and Angie have been the landlords for ten years.

— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of the differences between terms in Britain and terms in the US but wanted to get a perspective from someone that has a fuller history of the series and find any potential confusion. The applied terms would help out a lot for those unfamiliar with what is in Britain and what is in the US.

I have changed the first two para to the following which might be a bit more fully understood by those that have not seen the series from the beginning or not familiar with the differences of terms. Tell me if you think that either one is better than the other or is there a mixture that might better portray the storyline:

"In the Eastenders series spin-off Civvy Street (1988) life in Albert Square is featured between 1939 and 1945, and The Queen Victoria (The Queen Vic) freehold is owned by the brewery, Luxford & Copley. Ray and Lil Daniels are the landlords. When the series begins, the brewery remain owners and Den (Leslie Grantham) and Angie Watts (Anita Dobson) have been landlords for ten years. Gus and Flo Leonard, and Alf and Polly Barrett are alluded to as landlords prior to the start of the series."

"Angie is served with divorce papers by Den on Christmas Day 1986 and two years later he passes control to Frank (Mike Reid) and Pat Butcher (Pam St. Clement). In 1990, Frank and Pat hand over the pub to Eddie Royle. Eddie is murdered by Nick Cotton (John Altman) the following year, and the daughter of Den and Angie, Sharon Watts (Letitia Dean), becomes the first licensee when she buys the freehold of The Vic with the assistance of her husband Grant Mitchell (Ross Kemp) and his brother Phil (Steve McFadden); the three live there. Grant sets fire to the pub in 1992 in an insurance scam and it is refurbished. Grant and Sharon divorce and their share of The Queen Vic is sold to Grant's mother, Peggy (Barbara Windsor)."

I hope this is helpful.76.170.88.72 (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Do you get to watch EastEnders in California ? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 19:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, if I say yes to "watch" all is fine but don't ask me if they are commercially produced copies! That and some run downs by relatives and friends back in UK.76.170.88.72 (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That sounds okay. I thought perhaps BBC America were screening the series. No?
Are the copies regular?
As you may have observed, I enjoy working with you. You and I seem to have a "meeting of minds". Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many BBC dramatic productions broadcast in the UK do not make it to the US for regular broadcast or even the "Materpiece" program except what seems to be these 19th century British novels which are a wonderful way of getting to know the storyline so if you have to read them at least you can entertain yourself while reading them how much they match or strike away from the originals in the broadcasts. Again, I would only rate my knowledge of the programme a rudimentary but particularly for those that have never seen them or heard about them they should be explained in what I call "those stupid Americans" method so that what is fundamental in Britain and not necessarily needed to be explained is given some basis of explanation or a way of getting additional information such as through the links. That use the proper terms and those that do not live in the originating society will have an opportunity learn what is what and why. That if you explain it as it "happens" on the show you loose people because they start from a different place. It may be A B C D and apples oranges and lemons but then you have pants versus slacks, garter belts versus suspenders. I was just concerned that I may have missed something inherent in the language if written by a Brit versus an Am. But I see that someone may have been offended in some way with what was written. That happens a lot with the WP articles but I do hope that the storeyline is correct and hopefully expressed with some resemblance to its contents. Unfortunately, I think that the series content is too "risky" for the PBS public since all the Republicans with god and family values will say that it is advocating sin and discrepancy. The PBS audience here would rather have Animals Great and Small or Candleford. At least on BBC America they have old runs of Graham Norton making people silly. I do not want to impose any thing on any one so if what is written does not work then either revert it or change it.76.170.88.72 (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, what I see are all types of copies most "bootleg" with varying degrees of quality. My friends have suggested that I might chance it with them sending it through the internet if they face their laptop toward the telly.76.170.88.72 (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ha, ha! Quality could be suspect
It is a pity that analogue TV is a thing of the past. All my recording is done on the TiVo. If we still used the old cassette tapes it could have meant regular viewing for you. Ah well, that's progress.
You write above, "But I see that someone may have been offended in some way with what was written." As you can see from this, your version still remains in situ.
Have a great weekend! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but unlike foolscap and quill all the changes do not show in what appears unless you look through all the additional notes and then the reasons for changing are not mandatory. People seem sometimes to take personal offense to the slightest of changes to that which they contributed even when the article is a stub. And then to boot, they decide to be caustic in edit summaries and TALK page comments that may not pertain to the changes and instead used to attempt a reflection on someone's credibility. One of the reasons why I never have signed up with an "official" user name years ago. 76.170.88.72 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I cannot disagree with any of that. On the other hand, I have only ever edited as a registered user using my real name. I do belief one commands more credence as a result of that. An IP revision will always be met with more scrutiny in my experience. There are benefits attached to having a User name. Of course you appear to return each time with the same address which helps with regard to posting on your Talk page and with discussions like this one, as well as viewing all contributions made. The volatile IP address has none of these. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 00:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Pauline

Pauline wasn't just a cleaner, she worked there as a barmaid for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.99.58 (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Queen Victoria. 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/20101201093732/http://walfordweb.co.uk/item.php?id=2633 to http://www.walfordweb.co.uk/item.php?id=2633

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 14:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Should Mick and Linda have "barman" and "barmaid" listed under "job role"?

Landlord and landlady does not imply barman or barmaid, because Shirley does not work behind the bar. A landlord is simply the owner or manager, not necessarily a bar worker, so I think it should be added. AnemoneProjectors 11:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Fi's role

Up until now, we haven't included Fi as an employee due to the fact Grafton Hill employ her, not the Vic. But her role is almost identical to that of the Managing Supervisors. Wilmott-Brown was employed by the freeholder (Luxford and Copley) not the Vic, and Ronnie was employed by Phil in a role similar to Fi doing the books, so I suppose Fi should be listed as a managing supervisor. Tomski12 (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should clarify who was employed by the freeholder and who was employed by the Vic. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 09:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the only reason it got so complicated in the first case was because there were constant edits to the owner and what was classified as what. I think we should add Grafton Hill as the owner to the actual table. The Carters are landlords, that doesn't constitute being the owner. As I said above, would it not also make sense to add Fi into the actual table as a managing supervisor. The only reason I say this is because her role is identical to that of Sam, Ronnie, Willmott-Brown in everything but name. We decided not to list her in the table due to the fact she's not directly employed by the Vic, rather by the owners, as was Willmott-Brown in the 80's but is listed as a Managing supervisor. It would simplify the layout. Tomski12 (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

You're right, really. But it's all kind of changed now, she's not a business consultant or managing supervisor anymore. In fact she never really was, she was a con artist. I'll add Grafton to the table though. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 00:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for adding Grafton to the table. I'd still argue though that Fi should be included in the table due to the fact she did fulfill the majority of roles you'd expect of a business consultant/managing supervisor until sort of November time, as she did their accounts and business improvements. And as for the con artist tag I'd have to disagree I'm afraid due to the fact she and Grafton Hill have never done anything illegal or unethical in regards to getting the Vic and she carried out her role always within the law. I think we should add her into previous staff because the DS t is she did work there for over 6 months, but I'll leave it up to you. Tomski12 (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Meant to say 'the fact is' not DS t sorry. Tomski12 (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Well maybe we can put her as a past employee, I doubt people will join this discussion but you'd soon find out if someone disagrees when they remove her - if she's not removed then people will generally agree she belongs there. She did lie to gain the Carters' trust just so Weyland could take the Vic from them, so I'd call that a confidence trick. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 20:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that she manipulated them, but she never manipulated them illegally and she also carried out the roles she was expected to. I'm going to add her to the role of past managing supervisor for now. Tomski12 (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Key Events

I feel these need to be review, 'Karen Taylor attacking Phil for believing he killed Keanu' is hardly a key plot in the Vic or a moment in history.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.179.254 (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Owners/Landlords

It’s a long shot I know but I have been thinking is there a possibility that years could be added to the sections that I added so for example all the people that have been owners or landlords of The Vic the years that they were owners etc could be added next to them for instance below is an example of what I mean the dates don’t need to be accurate I just think it would look good for the dates to be there as a reference what are peoples thoughts? –85.255.236.150 (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Job role	Characters
Owners	Luxford and Copley, Grant Mitchell, Dan Sullivan, Steve Owen, Sam Mitchell, Den Watts, Chrissie Watts, Sharon Watts, Archie Mitchell, Roxy Mitchell, Peggy Mitchell, Phil Mitchell, Grafton Hill, Fi Browning, Mick Carter, Linda Carter
Landlords	Mr and Mrs Bagstock, Ray Sewell, Lil Sewell, Gus Leonard, Flo Leonard, Alf Barratt, Polly Barratt, Jan Hammond, Angie Watts, Pat Butcher, Eddie Royle, Grant Mitchell, Dan Sullivan (1999), Frank Butcher (1988–?), Den Watts (1985–1988), Chrissie Watts (2004–2005), Phil Mitchell (1991–2009), Archie Mitchell, Peggy Mitchell, Roxy Mitchell, Alfie Moon and Kat Moon (2010–12), Mick Carter and Linda Carter (2013–2020), Shirley Carter (2013–2020)

Sharon

Psychopath Sharon recently sold the pub back to the Carters. When is the article going to be updated to reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:C089:A500:7C3C:9110:A6 00:99A8 (talk) 11:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Sharon isn't really a psycho. She was deranged with grief. Some of her fans are a bit mental though like that Tomski and Bass55.

Owners/Landlords

Have added Mick ad Linda's names at the top of the page to bring it in line with the other soap pubs which include the names of their owners at the top too, hope this OK with everyone.