Talk:Jason Isaacs/Archive 1

Image
Whare is the image? PrometheusX303 23:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. Why didn't anybody call me on that bad spelling?

Speaking of the image, Artemisboy changed the picture. I'm fine with the change, but since Isaacs was nominated for an award for Chamber of Secrets, why not place that (old) picture in the award nominations section? PrometheusX303 22:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind the Harry Potter pic posted later down in the article, but I changed the main image as the actor himself is not blonde, but a brunette. Thus, I tried to find a decent picture of him in everyday clothes. Artemisboy 23:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the anon comment here about the specifics of Jason's residence. The guy has had problems with a stalker for years, and it's not relevant to the article.nmw 20:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ex-Juggler
Please tell me that's a joke. I remember reading that he was going to become a lawyer...not a juggler... before turning to acting. Skin Crawl 17:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section
I have parked the "Trivia" section of the article here because such sections are now deprecated. This is because they encourage editors to add bits of information to an ever-growing list rather than trying to incorporate them into the article (see the link in the above box for more information).


 * Isaacs has a long-running professional relationship with director Paul W. S. Anderson and producer Jeremy Bolt. Isaacs has appeared in four of Anderson's movies, mostly from his early period including Shopping, Event Horizon and Soldier. He had an uncredited role as Dr. William Birkin (and the narrator) in Resident Evil (2002). He was also set to play Dr. Birkin in Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004), but for some reason left the project. That is why in the 2002 movie the only part of Isaacs' face that can be seen are his eyes; the rest was covered by a medical mask. It is assumed that his role was taken over by Iain Glen.
 * In a 26 November 2006 article published in the San Francisco Chronicle, Isaacs was voted by the author as one of the 13 "Sexiest Men Who Are Real and Alive", while Lucius Malfoy, the character he portrayed in the Harry Potter films, was named as one of the 12 "Sexiest Men Who Were Never Alive".
 * Isaacs writes with his left hand, but uses his right hand when playing sports or when portraying acts of violence in films.
 * He is afraid of horses and spiders.
 * When taking on the role of Lucius Malfoy in the "Harry Potter" films, Issacs disagreed with the producer's idea that Malfoy be in a business suit and created the costume of a dark cape and cane.

Cheers, Jacklee 22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have readded the information into the article. Realistically, moving it to the talk page is the same as simply deleting it. Individual facts on the talk pages of all but the most-trafficed pages is likely to never be reincorporated in the text. When dealing with trivia and trivia sections, I think it is better to simply incorporate the information yourself, delete the information, or leave it for someone else. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 03:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia items and quotations have been incorporated into the body of the article or into footnotes. Cheers, Jacklee 15:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Publicity photo
I've removed the publicity photo from the article. It's copyrighted, and fair use specifically does not cover use in the actor's article. WP:FUC explains the details. The copyright notice on the image's page also explains it pretty well. The short of it is that the image is owned by the the movie folks and can only be used to illustrate movie related stuff. Oddly enough, the actor's bio isn't covered. I suppose if we created a "roles" section, we could use the image to illustrate that particular role. Rklawton 01:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Doh! I see there is a such a section, so I went ahead and moved the image down there.  Rklawton 02:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

All photographs have been removed from this article by an administrator for non-compliance with the non-free content criteria. Please try to locate copyright-free images for use in this article, if possible. Cheers, Jacklee 13:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A freely-licensed image has been added to the article. Woo hoo! &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 01:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is Isaacs currently living?
The article used to state that Isaacs and his family are currently living in Barrington, Rhode Island, but this was changed today to Providence, Rhode Island. Neither claim has been referenced. Can anyone provide a citation for this fact? Cheers, Jacklee 22:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted all mention of where Isaacs and his family are currently living, as this information is likely to change from time to time and is very difficult to verify. In any case, it's of marginal interest only. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 00:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Jason Isaacs married?
Edited section on private life--Jason and Emma are not married. He's said in several interviews that they've talked about it, but something's always come up, and that they'll probably get married when Lily tells them that they're embarassing her.nmw 07:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Somebody had changed it back to "wife". I've fixed it and added a reference.--Brother William 08:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, as of sometime late last year, Jason's been referring to Emma as his wife, and he's started wearing what appears to be a wedding band. I guess they figured that after the second kid, they might as well make it legal.nmw 20:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Haven't seen any articles mentioning that Jason Isaacs and Emma Hewitt have married. In an article on the website of The Sun, believed to have been published in 2006, Isaacs states that he and Hewitt have not formally married yet. If there are any new articles, please update the article with a citation. Cheers, Jacklee 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Did Isaacs drop out of university?
The article states that Jason dropped out of Bristol to go to Central--is this correct?nmw 20:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know. The article currently states that he graduated from Bristol University before studying at the Central School of Speech and Drama, but an article from Moviefone, which I've put in a footnote, says he dropped out of university. If anyone can clarify this, please update the article with a citation. Cheers, Jacklee 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Tyber Zann
Hi, 71.99.51.17, you recently edited the article "Jason Isaacs" to add the following sentence: "Jason Issac's likeness was used as the model for the villain Tyber Zann, in the Star Wars game Star Wars: Forces of Corruption." This isn't the first time the information has been inserted, but it has been removed so far because no reference has been provided for it. Without a reference, it is not possible to tell whether the Star Wars game character was actually based on Isaacs or whether this is just a coincidence. It isn't enough simply if some editors think Tyber Zann looks like Isaacs. Therefore, do refrain from reinserting the information unless you can provide a reference for it. &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 16:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Member of the Order of the British Empire?
Hi, 59.100.222.182. You've edited the article three times to add the postnominal letters "CBE" once, and then "MBE" twice, after Isaacs' name in the lead, suggesting that he was made a Member of the Order of the British Empire. You did not indicate in the edit summary your reasons for inserting this information. I've reverted these edits because you did not provide any reference for this information. If you do have a reference but do not know how to insert it into the article, please post the information here on the talk page so that an editor can help you. Otherwise, please do not keep reinserting the unreferenced information. Thanks. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 14:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of image from infobox
The image of Jason Isaacs that had been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, Image:Isaacs, Jason (DH6112).jpg, was deleted by an administrator as there was insufficient evidence that it had been licensed it to the Commons under a free licence such as the GNU Free Documentation License or a Creative Commons licence. My understanding is that it was Isaacs' managing agent which uploaded the image, and it had authority to release this photograph to Wikimedia under a free license. If the uploader e-mails me at jack.at.wikipedia AT gmail.com (replace the "AT" with "@") to confirm that it is authorized by the copyright owner of the photograph to license it to Wikimedia under the GFDL and/or the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence, I will help to sort out the matter and get the photograph restored to the article. Feel free to ask me any questions as well. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 23:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Replaced with the free image of Isaacs from Wikimedia Commons. --NYScholar (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why the image has been sized so small? It could stand to be little bigger. Gran2 11:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got in touch with Isaacs' agency and hope to get the publicity photo restored soon. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do not generally use "publicity photos" in infoboxes; as long as the image used is in Wikimedia Commons, it is more in keeping with Neutral point of view to use the current photo than a "publicity photo" provided by an agent. See the information pertaining to use of photos in infoboxes for actors and other celebrities, via WP:MOS. The size (though smaller than 180 px) is appropriately legible so that the infobox posts opposite the lead and table of contents and does not interfere with (interrupt) the next section. It is easier to consult this way. Overly-large photos (espec. "publicity shots") look too much like advertisements for the subject (see WP:ADVERT) and skew the posting of the infobox unnecessarily. Again, this is not a fansite; it is an encyclopedia article. If the publicity photo is used instead of the one currently used (the Wikimedia Commons image, then it will still need to be this size to avoid skewing the infobox; the current image will be moved back down to the section on Isaacs' performance in The Dumb Waiter. --NYScholar (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)  [These biographies are not "sanctioned" by public relations agents of their subjects; they are written independently of them by Wikipedia editors without such influence on their content, as long as it is in keeping with WP:BLP, which this one currently is. --NYScholar (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)]


 * After consulting WP:MOS, I enlarged the image in the infobox to 180px and compensated by reformatting the table of contents, via change in References sec. (used subsections instead of semi-colons for subheadings). Hope that suffices. --NYScholar (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Further cleanup of this article
The lead needed pruning and refocusing on what the subject is "best known" for; see WP:MOS. It was very redundant, with repetitions throughout the text of the article and the same statements made more than once throughout. This article reads more like a fansite than an encyclopedia article in places; it needs to be presented in a more-factual style of writing; quotations need to be incorporated only to support statements. The article needs to meet the requirements of core policies in Wikipedia, such as Neutral point of view and WP:BLP throughout. Any potentially-controversial statement or statement that might be challenged as to verifiability can be deleted on sight according to WP:BLP. Please see the linked policies and guidelines in the top template headers. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed unsourced material; the citation to a tabloid (The Sun) contained a URL that went to the home page of the tabloid, not to the article being cited; no way to verify at this time. See the editing history diffs. for what had to be removed, as per WP:BLP, WP:V. --NYScholar (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC) [added Wikilink to "tabloid". --NYScholar (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)]


 * I think the pruning of the lead was too drastic. The lead is meant to summarize the article, and as such it will naturally repeat information that appears in the main text of the article. What you have reduced the lead to no longer properly summarizes the article. I suggest the original lead be restored. As for the citation to The Sun, the link was previously valid but has unfortunately expired. In the absence of an alternative citation, the original citation should also be restored. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 23:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The earlier lead was not encyclopedic; it read like fancruft, was highly redundant, given the exact repetitions in the article; it was not "summary". In articles about living persons in Wikipedia (biographies and those mentioning living persons) sources must be verifiable. You cannot restore a citation that is unverifiable. See WP:V and WP:BLP. This is not a fansite; it is an encyclopedia; WP:Encyclopedic. --NYScholar (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead to summarize the most notable material. --NYScholar (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The defunct link to an article in The Sun
Regarding the citation of The Sun article, my point was that if an alternative citation cannot be found, it is better simply to deactivate the dead link but to keep the citation information than to delete the citation altogether and leave the fact unreferenced. "Citing sources" states, "Even with an inactive link, the citation still records a source that was used, and provides a context for understanding archiving delays or for taking other actions." — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 23:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the material removed due to unverifability, as per WP:BLP: "Isaacs and Hewitt are not married, but they refer to each other as "husband" and "wife": "otherwise people get rather peculiar. It seems a bit weird to call someone your girlfriend when you have a child." Although Isaacs has proposed to Hewitt, and although she has accepted, each time that they think about arranging a wedding, he gets involved in another project; he has quipped that they will probably get married when their daughter Lily comes back from school and says: "You two have to get married, you're really embarrassing me.""

[I don't think that that material adds anything "encyclopedic" to this article. It is unnecessary and rather gossipy. The fact is that he and his partner are not married, and that they are "domestic partners" and not husband and wife, no matter what they call each other according to the unverifiable outdated URL. This kind of material should not appear in the article, even within editorial interpolation angle brackets. (Tabloid newspapers that focus on personal matters are not generally respected or suitable as "reliable" sources in Wikipedia biographies of living persons. There is no need for this material in this article.)] --NYScholar (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC) [addition]. --NYScholar (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are my thoughts on the matter:
 * Unverifiability: I think you are misinterpreting "Verifiability". It is not correct to equate verifiability with accessibility on the Internet. The fact is verifiable – it was mentioned in The Sun newspaper article, and at the time when I inserted the citation the article was still accessible. The fact that the article has "expired" on the website of The Sun does not make the fact unverifiable. If someone wanted to verify the fact they could visit a public library with holdings of The Sun and look up the relevant issue of the print edition of the newspaper. If one were to apply an "If-I-can't-find-it-on-the-Internet-it's-not-verifiable" rule, then all articles which cited books, encylopedias and journal articles that are not on the Internet (or only accessible by subscription) would be "unverifiable", and that cannot be right. (By the way, if you wish to see what was stated in the article, there are unofficial copies accessible on the Internet, such as . However, such sites should not be linked to as they violate copyright.)
 * Reliability of sources: I also do not think it is right to say that tabloid newspapers are "not generally respected or suitable" as reliable sources. That is too sweeping an assertion. It depends on the article and the tabloid in question. Often, the only sources of information on subjects such as actors and musicians are tabloids. If an article cites unnamed sources, there is cause for scepticism. However, in this case, the Sun article was an interview with Jason Isaacs himself. The information was therefore from the horse's mouth, so to speak, and I see no reason to doubt its reliability.
 * Encyclopedic nature: This is a point that is separate from the verifiability point. I agree that the information is borderline non-encyclopedic. The problem with information of this nature is that there are some editors who insist on inserting them into articles even though they have been removed by other editors. I have found that if the information is not libellous, sometimes it is easier just to leave it in articles, provided it is properly referenced. For the reasons stated in the first paragraph, I do not think it can be said that the information is not referenced.
 * — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I still don't think that the material is notably important enough to keep in the article. Passages like that–which used to be stuck in notes that didn't post due to formatting errors in the use of multiple citation templates within one set of "ref" codes (in angle brackets)– abounded and were more like the kind of material that one finds in fansites than what belongs in an encyclopedia article (in Wikipedia).  Just because a tabloid quotes a subject as saying something about his partner does not mean that it is notable enough to include.  The fact that they are partners and have two daughters is really all that is needed; the rest seems to me to be fancruft.   Verifiability has to do with whether readers can verify the source; if it is an outdated URL, it does not belong in the article.  All such URLs need updating when they expire; if one can't find it archived via the Internet Archive: The Wayback Machine, or some other internet archive (as at The Sun) and cannot give precise publication information (as well as author and title and work published in, date of publication and page numbers), then it is not "verifiable"; if there is no printed-version page number given [and no precise date of publication], it is not verifiable now.  Whether it was in the past is not something that holds water in WP:BLP.  One needs to check the links for all sources in an article to make sure that they function; if they don't they need updating or replacement with another source; if the source cannot document the statement, the statement can be removed as per WP:BLP.  WP:BLP is Wikipedia policy and governs this article as it does other biographies of living persons.  Wikipedia is extremely clear about the necessity of "impeccable" sources in biographies of living persons.  That is clearly understood by most Wikipedia editors and administrators.  Thanks for your efforts.  I do not think that the inclusion of the passage in question "improves" the article in any way and that citing an outdated URL, which is not verifiable by readers of the article (with no print page [and no precise date of publication] given for library verification) weakens the article; it does not strengthen (improve) it.  --NYScholar (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC) [added bracketed info.; corr. --NYScholar (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC) --NYScholar (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)]; [corrections; clarified. --NYScholar (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)]


 * The fansite (jasonisaacsonline.com--a non-citable source for this article) offers a transcribed version of the interview from the tabloid The Sun with no precise date ("ca. 2004", giving a speculative range between two months over 2004 and 2005), no title for the article, no page numbers; the transcribed version (The transcription constitutes a copyright violation in Wikipedia, so one cannot link to it in this Wikipedia article about Isaacs)--is Google-able; e.g., see the search words used: . Fans interested in more information about Isaacs' personal relationship with his partner can easily find it and other information like that; it does not need to be in this encyclopedia article and, it still seems to me, is inappropriate to include.  Wikipedia articles are directed to the general reader, not to a celebrity-actor's fans; for the related policy, please see: WP:NOT. --NYScholar (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC) [Updated: added policy link. --NYScholar (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)]
 * [Added later for information]: For more information about not linking to obvious or potential copyright violations as "convenience links" when original URL has expired, see, e.g., WP:C. Thanks.  --NYScholar (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See also related policies and guidelines pertaining to: External links, which redirects from WP:FANSITE, and which includes a section on what to do about "dead links" (scroll throughout it) to WP:External links, which also links to WP:DEADLINK, as does section in Citing Sources. There is no point in linking to The Sun article if the material in it is "borderline", however.  It can simply continue to be omitted from this encyclopedia article on Jason Isaacs.  --NYScholar (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)  [One might want to keep in mind that the comments purportedly by Isaacs are at least two to three years old (if published in 2004 to 2005) and, therefore, perhaps no longer relevant anyway, since, apparently, he has not yet married Hewitt, despite what he may have stated to a tabloid interviewer earlier. --NYScholar (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)]


 * Fair enough – I take the point that there was insufficient citation information to identify the article in a print edition of The Sun, and in any case since the information is borderline non-encyclopedic I've no objections to it being removed.
 * By the way, what browser are you using? I usually view Wikipedia with Internet Explorer and have no problems at all viewing multiple citation templates enclosed within a single set of tags. I've posted a question at "Wikipedia talk:Citing sources" about this. To avoid a multiplicity of footnote numbers, I try to combine citations into one footnote unless a particular citation needs to be referred to at different points in the article. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 15:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I use IE[7]. --NYScholar (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC) [Checked the version; I am actually already using IE7 and have done so for a long time. So I updated version no. in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)] [I view Wikipedia on a Dell Dimension XPSGen5, using Media Center 2005 (XP for Windows), on a 20-in. widescreen Ultrascan Dell LCD Monitor.  I don't think there is any mistake with what I am viewing.  But see additional comments (most recent ones) below.  Thanks.   --NYScholar (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)]


 * Re: "unless a particular citation needs to be referred to at different points in the article": Several of those lumped-together sources (using only one "ref name=") did indeed need to be referred to at different points in the article. See my latest explanation below.  Also the coding of the quotations without using the field "quote=" within the curved brackets [  ] created posting problems; those quotations did not show up at all in text mode (they were only visible in "preview" or editing mode, and they corrupted the citations); there were missing characters at times too; in my more recent comments (scroll down), I linked to a "diffs" and a "previous version" that illustrate those corruptions.  --NYScholar (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous problems of citations: corrupted citation templates
The way the citation templates were used earlier resulted in the sources not showing up as source citations; quotations are incorporated in a citation by using "quote=" as a field; the [other fields in the] source citations come first. Editing changes need to follow actual policies and guidelines. That way of formatting citations [in the "combined" material between "ref" tags as described above] was idiosyncratic and resulted in sources not showing up properly. See WP:MOS, which recommends incorporating quotations in the text of articles in a coherent fashion (or else removing them entirely); [incidental or supporting quotations can be incorporated in notes in the "quote=" field]. Again, the information added to the article by way of editorial interpolations (which show up only in editing preview mode) or embedded oddly in references, between "ref" codes appeared to me to be more fancruft and not encyclopedic; the material added to a biography of a living person needs to conform to WP:BLP. I spent a lot of time trying to revise the material hidden in notes that didn't show up so that the citation templates are accurately formatted and the material incorporated in the text of the article, removing also a lot of redundancies. Please see the editing history. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC) [fixed link. --NYScholar (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC); corr. in brackets; --NYScholar (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC); further clarified that referring to post by other user above; added sec. title for my comment about larger matter. --NYScholar (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)][further addition in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)]

The "prevailing" citation format for this article is citation templates. To "combine citations into one footnote" in a way that the citation templates do not result in the proper posting of the sources as source citations corrupted the citation templates. It did not function to make the sources post accurately. It took hours to recode those citations so that they showed up as notes and so that I could verify them. I added access dates as well. --NYScholar (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. My responses:
 * I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by my use of the citation templates resulting in "sources not showing up as source citations" or "sources not showing up properly". In what way did the sources not show up properly? They showed up fine on my computer and, it would appear, on other editors' computers too: see the discussion "Citing sources". I'm also not sure what you mean by "editorial interpolations (which show up only in editing preview mode)". Everything that was placed within tags shows up when viewed on my personal laptop as well as my office computer. Perhaps there is something amiss with your computer settings?
 * "Manual of Style" and "Citing sources" do not state that the use of multiple citation templates within a single set of tags is to be deprecated. I disagree that such a usage is "idiosyncratic". In fact, I dislike the practice of placing a single reference in each footnote as this can lead to multiple unnecessary footnote numbers after a sentence.
 * While an incidental or supporting quotation can certainly be added to the "quote=" parameter of a citation template, again I do not see anything in the Manual of Style that mandates such a usage. There is nothing wrong in principle with placing a quotation in a footnote and following it with a citation, like this:

"Here is the quotation":
 * You are, of course, entitled to regard some of the quotations that were placed in footnotes rather than in the main text as "fancruft" and to remove them if you see fit. I recall that there used to be a deprecated "Quotations" section in the article, and to remove it I incorporated the quotations into the article or footnotes. I suppose I should have been bolder in removing some of the more marginal quotations, but I was fairly new to Wikipedia at the time and cautious about deleting material that other people had inserted.
 * Finally, do you realize that your method of indicating amendments to your comments is really confusing? :-) It's not really necessary to highlight changes that you make to your comments. If someone has already responded to your unamended comments, just start a new comment.
 * — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 23:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between "policy" and what one "dislikes". It is more important that people be able to see that source citations are exactly that; personal preferences are not policy. There is nothing wrong with my settings. Those citations did not show up properly before. It took hours to figure out what they were because they did not post properly. I read a response to your posting elsewhere (see above) and I didn't see agreement with your points there. Many Wikipedia articles have multiple citations. I left in the additional reviews, though they are not necessary for documenting the statement. I also added the clear annotation of the What's On Stage source so that one can see that it includes excerpts from several of the reviews cited. Multiple note numbers are preferable to not being able to see that multiple sources are being cited with active links. I really could not follow the way you had combined notes. They only showed up in many cases in preview mode, not in the way the text posted in the Notes section; I reformatted the References section as well, so that it was consistent with the citations templates being used otherwise (in notes). The article's citations were a hodgepodge earlier. They are at least consistently formatted now. Thanks for your efforts, in any case. --NYScholar (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation templates automatically place a quotation last in a note when "quote=" is used as a field. There is no reason to alter that, as readers expect to see the normal order created by the templates. The quotation is properly introduced by a colon in such a template usage. Changing it to some other order according to one's own "personal preference" is "idiosyncratic", by definition. --NYScholar (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Please do not point to an entire page of material, but rather identify precisely which policy or guideline you intend one to read by indicating what it is by title and/or section name/link. Thanks. Here is the pertinent guideline relating to prevailing citation template formats in this article (currently): Citation templates

[ details|Wikipedia:Citation templates ] The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus. [from WP:CITE.] --NYScholar (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I really do not understand what you mean by the previous citations not "showing properly" or "not posting properly". I haven't experienced any problems with them – all external links show up properly. Can you describe how they failed? Were there any error messages? Within each footnote, I arranged citations according to date, and if more than one citation had the same date I arranged them alphabetically according to the name of the source. I do not see how this can be characterized as a "hodgepodge".
 * There may be a "quote=" parameter within citation templates, but that does not mean that it has to be used and that there is no other correct way to set out quotations. "Citing sources", which you quoted, states that the use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. I could have set out a quotation in a footnote without using a citation template at all. So long as the usage is clear and consistent within the article, it is not contrary to "Citing sources".
 * You said, "Please do not point to an entire page of material..." I'm not exactly sure which part of my comments you were referring to. If you were referring to my mention of "Manual of Style" and "Citing sources", what I was trying to say was that nothing in those guidelines states that one should not place multiple citations in a single footnote. Therefore, it is not against policy to do so, contrary to what you suggest. You quoted "Citing sources", which states that "editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus". What this means is that if an article currently uses citation templates, an editor should not change them to citation templates, or vice versa. But it could equally be said that if there is no guideline against grouping several citations into one footnote, then such a footnote should not be broken up into separate footnotes each containing one citation without the issue having first been discussed and consensus reached. — Cheers,  Jack Lee  –talk– 03:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done the best I can to explain the problems with your earlier way of citing sources; I've made the changes that I deemed necessary so that one could read the sources that you were citing in the (then and current) "prevailing" citation format. I'm afraid that I can't take any more time to explain the problems any further. Multiple notes are used in Wikiepdia articles. The citation templates are generally not combined in the manner that you combined them. I've never seen that done in any other article in Wikipedia before encountering your (now-revised) notes in this article. I've been working to edit Wikipedia for several years. Please see my user page for more information and links. One does not do something because there is "no guideline" saying not to do it; one follows actual guidelines already presented. It was not a question of prior discussion; I could not verify the notes as you presented them; the links to the sources were often not showing up at all and, in some cases, the publication information was not accurate or presented inaccurately despite the use of templates; I used the quotation field for quotations; it is part of a citation template used prior to those "summary" notes in this article. You introduced the summary notes without prior discussion; I had no idea what you were attempting to do. Now that you have explained, I still prefer the straight-forward use of citation templates, even if they produce multiple notes. The short notes are easy to access. If they are unnecessary, one can simply remove them. There are hyperlinks to most of those additional notes re: The Dumb Waiter production, already presented in the citation (note) citing What's On Stage, as my (added) annotation makes clear. I think that your insistence on returning to problematic citation format that you prefer (a personal preference) is bordering on disruption. See WP:DISRUPT. Why not just let the citations stand as is and see if some of the addtional notes are not needed and subsequently deleted by later editors: WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus operates over long periods of time and is generally not achieved by two editors commenting back and forth. Additional help may be needed. Perhaps an administrator can look at the current format of the citations in the article and provide some helpful input. I myself am engaged in other work-related projects (very busy with them) and can take no more time with this matter. I have devoted enough of my time voluntarily to correcting many problems in this article. If you do not appreciate the time taken, I regret that. Again, please visit my user page for more information. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As it was more pertinent to cite the reviews of this production in the article on The Dumb Waiter, I've moved several of them there. The statement in this article is supported quite well enough by the sources currently following it.  One does not need to cite so many additional reviews of the production as separate sources (whether in a summary note or in normal citation template format).  The article on The Dumb Waiter had no sources at all; I had placed a template on it indicating that recently; I've moved the note citations to an appropriate statement in that article and updated the template on it.  If one wants to work on creating an article just on that production of the play, one can of course do so.  Then one can add a "see main" article template in the appropriate section there.  Right now, the statement about the Trafalgar Studios production is part of the article on the play.  Cross-linking via Wikified links is common, and useful, to avoid duplication of effort.  This article is already cross-linked via the Wikified link to "Jason Isaacs" in the article on The Dumb Waiter.  My editing goal has been to "improve" these articles.  That is what I took my time to do.  Thanks for providing the original publication details of the hyperlinked articles in the What's On Stage source (as now cited in this article on Isaacs and in the article on the production of The Dumb Waiter; they enabled me to construct the separate citation templates, though doing so did take a lot of time.
 * See The Dumb Waiter, which already contains a Wikified cross-link to this article on Isaacs. I've added a similar cross-ref. (Wikified link to that sec.) in this article.  --NYScholar (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

To future editors: Please try to follow the prevailing citation format of both articles (citation templates). Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
 * I resent the suggestion that I am being disruptive. I am not. I have not tried to revert your edits to the article at all, nor have I any intention to do so. I am just trying to understand why you find multiple citations in a footnote problematic. I have not encountered any problem with them, either with links not appearing or otherwise. I find it very strange that you are having difficulty viewing them.
 * I have also been editing Wikipedia for a while. As I have made clear above, there is no guideline which states that the use of multiple citations in a footnote is wrong. Therefore, it is not right for you to claim that I was not following actual guidelines.
 * I'm not sure why you are referring me to your user page. What do you want me to look at there? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 18:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The userboxes section contains my linked editing practice relating to citations in Wikipedia. For the earlier problems you need to examine "diffs" via editing history (e.g, another e.g.: Diffs.; I don't have time to list all the problems; you can see the corrections that I made and my summaries about why I made them easily enough if you examine differences throughout; I do not feel that I have to spell this out for you further.  I've done the best I can to explain; if you do not understand, I am sorry for that, but I can't take time to explain it any further (as I've already said).  Please respect that.  The article is fine the way it is now.  --NYScholar (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Look also at the "previous versions" in total; e.g., Old version; in order to code notes used more than once that are lumped together in that long list of notes, one has to code them separately; e.g., "ref name=Billington" and so on. I needed to go through each separate note, click on link, verify its accuracy, and re-code the notes separately, so that they can be used more than once via "ref name=" codes; that is the proper way to code in citation templates that one may be using more than once.  There were errors in other notes that earlier editors (perhaps different ones) had created in citation templates, and I had to correct all of them; there were missing citations entirely, which I had to try to supply in the proper places; I had to remove many redundant parts of the article and then find the right source citations to document [what remained of them]; all that meant recoding the "summary" notes, which really were not conveniently presented due to the lack of "ref name=" to refer back to [for each individual note].  Quotation marks are not needed around those "names" unless there are spaces in them; I tried to recode everything with one name to avoid use of the unnec. "/"; etc.  My editing summaries are general explanations of such minor "format" changes; format changes are considered "minor" and do not require explanations or prior discussion; they are basically typographical corrections ("tc", as I abbrev. that); see my own user boxes for my own editorial background and practices and the "N.B." section of my talk page for explanation of why I have no further time to continue such discussions as this one.  The article is improved; that is the goal.  --NYScholar (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC); [corr. in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)] [added "for each individual note" in brackets.  See above comments too. Thanks.  --NYScholar (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)]


 * As regards the diff, I don't know who edited it to insert the "quote=" parameter outside the citation template or when this happened. The last time I viewed the article it was fine and I didn't notice this change.
 * As regards breaking up single footnotes with multiple citations in them into separate footnotes, it's fine for you to do that if you feel that some of the citations need to be separately referred to using in other parts of the article. When I last edited the article, I didn't think this was necessary but of course you are entitled to take a different view.
 * Anyway, thanks for taking the time to revise the article. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 23:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you also. --NYScholar (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Images
After someone replaced the image in the infobox, I moved the earlier image back to where it illustrates the paragraph about Isaacs' performance in The Dumb Waiter (as I stated above I would do when another Wikimedia Commons [image] was inserted there), and I added a caption for the current infobox photo (and a related source to the list of articles). --NYScholar (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC) [corr. in brackets; had left out the word image.] --NYScholar (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of information without reasons being given
Hi, Talkingturkey. You've deleted from the article information that is properly referenced without giving any reason in your edit summary or here on this talk page. That is not the way to improve the article. If you feel there is a good reason why the information should not be in the article, please state it here so that the matter can be discussed with other editors and consensus reached on whether the information should remain in the article or not. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 03:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Talkingturkey. I see that you've continued to delete information from the article that is properly referenced, as well as an image that is correctly licensed to the Wikimedia Commons. I urge you to discuss the matter here so that your reasons for making these edits can be discussed by the Wikipedia community. If you continue to delete the material while refusing to discuss the matter, your edits may be regarded as disruptive and you may find yourself blocked from editing. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 05:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Half Blood Prince?
I thought I saw his picture in a promo picture for the 6th Harry Potter installment coming out in July of 2009. It should be added to the filmogoraphy. 68.39.131.127 (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. The information can be added if a reputable source (a news article, for instance) can be found for it. Until then, it should not be included. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 07:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Best Known
The intro para is almost impossible to read. The phrase "best known" is singular; can we decide on one or rewrite the para to make it comprehensible? --72.10.202.61 (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have done a minor rephrasing. — Cheers, Truth's Out There  –talk– 05:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Should cut the inroduction down a bit more, as it's a bit too long, but also should mention his lead role in the series Awake in the introduction itself.CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Liverpool and Lancashire?
Liverpool is in the county of Merseyside.. right??! Not Lancashire...--Vindicta (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As the hidden comment in the article indicates, at the time when Isaacs was born Liverpool was in Lancashire. It would be wrong to say that Liverpool was in Merseyside at that time, since "Merseyside" only came into existence in 1974. — Cheers, Truth's Out There  –talk– 07:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well surely the logical thing to do, is to remove the county all together. Liverpool is a city of almost half a million and I would suspect for a city that size the normal style would be to have simply Liverpool, England. Normally only small towns would be clarified by their county so as to remove any potential confusion on which town is being referred to. In this case there is no risk of confusion (See Liverpool (disambiguation)). As such, I will remove Lancashire unless someone sees a valid reason for it to remain included (for example if Mr Isaacs considered himself a Lancashian rather than Liverpudlian) --Daviessimo (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea. The inclusion of the county seems to cause more confusion than it is worth. — Cheers, Truth's Out There  –talk– 15:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Since when has Liverpool been in Lancashire?
Liverpool is in Merseyside. It is not in Lancashire and never has been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.68 (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ummm, not true. According to "Merseyside", "the title 'Merseyside' came into existence as a metropolitan county in 1974", and the article "Liverpool" says the city was "[h]istorically a part of Lancashire". Therefore, in 1963 when Isaacs was born, Liverpool was in Lancashire. Anyway, the point is moot because the reference to the county has been removed, which is probably for the best since it seems to cause more confusion than its inclusion is worth. — Cheers, Truth's Out There  –talk– 15:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * An editor reinserted "Lancashire" as the county that Liverpool was in when Isaacs was born, and this was later changed to "Merseyside" by an anonymous editor. As indicated above, it is incorrect to indicate that Isaacs was born in "Liverpool, Merseyside", as the term "Merseyside" only came into existence in 1974 and Isaacs was born in 1963. I have reworded the article so that it merely states "Liverpool, England", as Daviessimo also did, as this seems to be a suitable compromise. — Cheers, Truth's Out There  –talk– 04:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Good article?
If this is a "good article" the standards for that must be pretty low. It reads like a random string of name-dropping and throw-away puff-piece quotes and gossip. So he lobbied for a cameo in a Harry Potter movie... this is noteworthy? "He posed for photographs after his performance on 3 March 2007"... seriously? Are you kidding me? This is not an encyclopedia article; it's a joke. - 99.54.138.197 (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think its a great article. It gives a very good feel for the guy. Besides, if you are going to criticize have something constructive to add. This is just your opinion. No. No one is kidding. Im not sure why you put "good article" in quotations. The reason his activities and interests are written here is because this article is about him. Sign your post next time, whoever you are! Lollipopfop (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)