Talk:Scott McGregor (actor)

Edit war
They are conflicting reports about Scott. He says himself he has signed up for another, some reports say he is leaving. Until Scott or neighbours.com.au confirm he is leaving, he is still a current character and should not say he is leaving,

Scott said he was stoked to become a regular and is enjoying being on Neighbours. Hopefully it's all a rumour and he commits to his year contract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.4.80 (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * He signed for a year, then his contract was cut short either by him or the producers. Now, please stop edit warring and removing sourced content. - JuneGloom    Talk  18:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

They won't have cut his contract short, when they signed him for another year. They are a lot of conflicting stories out there about this, some sane say his contract was cut and Scott himself confirmed he has signed for another year. you can't add a source when they are conflicting reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.10.49 (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How do you know they haven't cut his contract short?


 * Of course producers etc can cut contracts short, just look at what Neighbours did to Shane Connor. Either way The Press Association are saying it's true, Channel Five are asking if we'll be sad to see him go.  TV Tonight are also reporting the same news and are quoting Network Ten as their source.  TV Tonight are not going to be stupid enough to quote Network Ten as being their source and cite contractual differences as being the reason, if that were untrue that would leave them open to all sorts of legal trouble from Network Ten and probably Neighbours as well.  David Knox is not that stupid.


 * Quit the edit war.--5 albert square (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest accepting it, even if you can't trust an article with sources. He's going, nothing you can do about it. I'll let you know if Neighbours are offering any grievance classes, only if Neighbours.com confirm them mind. ;) RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 22:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You've been told more than once, in more than one place that this is happening. We may never know the real reason why Scott's contract ended early, but this is not a rumour, he will be leaving in a few months. - JuneGloom    Talk  22:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's a contractual reason then we're unlikely to hear why the contract ended early. To be quite blunt that is really nobodys business apart from McGregor's, Network Ten's and Neighbours'.--5 albert square (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get Scott's date of birth from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.77.57 (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what this has got to do with the edit war. You would need to ask whoever added the date of birth where they got it from.  However Channel 5 say December 28, 1980 and Channel 5 can be accepted as a reliable source--5 albert square (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

http://holysoap.channel5.com/neighbours/news/scott-to-flex-muscles-abroad-13033 Scott revealed: "It would have been nice to stay longer but I turn 30 in April and there are things I want to do before I settle down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.17.34 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be careful in removing references in future. Also the ref you provided only confirms the month (and possibly year) of birth, so the day should be removed. - JuneGloom    Talk  21:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible change in parenthetical disambiguation
There is a request 2017011310000343 to change the article title from Scott McGregor (model) to Scott McGregor (actor)

The guidelines on parenthetical disambiguation WP:NCDAB do not go into a great deal of detail on how the term should be chosen. In my view, it ought to be as neutral as possible (so "superstar" is not an option). It ought to closely reflect an attribute of the subject so that anyone looking at a disambiguation list of people or subjects with the same name will quickly identify the one they are interested in. One common challenge is that person may be notable for one attribute, but another attribute more appropriately reflects the current situation. For example, if John Doe is in Wikipedia because of their party of experience as an actor but they are retired from acting and are trying to become a writer, we would probably turn down a request to use the parenthetical descriptor "writer" in favor of "actor". In my opinion, this is a closer call. Both "model" and "actor" are in the opening sentence. Based on my cursory reading the article it seems he may have become originally known for modeling but more recently is doing more acting.

I am inclined to support the change, but would like to get a consensus of other editors.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * He is still modelling, but he also has a regular acting role on a weekly soap opera, which I think he is probably better known for (at least in Australia and the UK). So I support the change. - JuneGloom07    Talk  01:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I just remembered this discussion and wondered if my lone support of the move was enough? - JuneGloom07 Talk  00:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)