Talk:Douglas Haig (disambiguation)

Removal of red link

I realise that it is not invariably wrong to have red links in articles, but there are limits. As I understand it it is OK to have a red link if this is likely to lead to an article eventually. However, going by his IMDB entry, this actor only ever had around a dozen parts, probably most of them minor, and none of them in an important film. I think that if a biography was ever written he would be judged not notable. At the very least, it is the responsibility of those who might disagree to establish notability. We can't have human name disambiguation pages cluttered with red links to non-notable actors and the like, there could be hundreds of them. PatGallacher (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This may raise some questions which merit discussion across Wikipedia, but I do not think it is appropriate to list a non-notable actor in this way, including a blue link to a film he appeared in. PatGallacher (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The actor is notable, and the entry on the disambiguation page was entirely appropriate. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Entry for non-notable actor

Is it legitimate for a page like this to include an entry for a non-notable actor, if he happened to have a minor part in at least one notable film? Or is this approach likely to lead to human name disambiguation pages being cluttered with a lot of unencyclopedic entries? (We may take it that this actor is non-notable since nobody has taken up my suggestion that they could create a biography and defend its notability.) PatGallacher (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It meets MOS:DABMENTION, so is, as the guidelines stand, valid. I think the guidelines are right, and it helps find what information we have on notable or semi-notable people. As it meets the guidelines at present, I don't think it should be removed from here, and a discussion could be started on the wikiproject if you feel MOS:DABMENTION should be altered. Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• The young actor had several major roles and some minor roles. They're not uber famous, but certainly seem worth noting. I don't see how omitting them improves the encyclopedia in any way. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Meets MOS:DABMENTION. Further, has had other major/minor roles so he is not famous only because of this specific film. I suppose he doesn't meet the notability criteria - but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be mentioned in a DAB page. Maashatra11 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• RfC response. No, this actor played only a supporting part in a minor, forgotten old movie. The other entry, the athletic club, also doesn't belong. The entry says that he "starred" in a particular movie. But the article on the movie shows him as a member of the supporting cast, far down in the billing. If he was an actual top billed star of numerous old movies I might feel differently. He was a minor child actor of the 1930s. Figureofnine (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It is not inconceivable that someone might actually be looking in Wikipedia for the actor. bd2412 T 22:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. Just stumbled on this incredibly trivial content dispute. One reason to list the guy on a dab page is that there are redlinks to him from other pages. Or at least there would be if someone didn't keep unlinking them. Plus there is the character by the same name on Blackadder. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The "character on Blackadder" is just a fictional portrayal of the real Douglas Haig. We don't have a separate article (or a separate disambig page entry) for every fictionalized portrayal of a real person. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That is true. However, there already exists a paragraph about this fictional character on Wikipedia: List of minor Blackadder characters#Haig, Field_Marshall, Sir Douglas. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that there could be a good deal of controversy about whether the portrayal of Haig on Blackadder is fair or accurate. However that does not justify treating him as a completely separate character. It could be a large can of worms, with every portrayal of a historical character in historical fiction or drama which has a brief paragraph in an article, to include this in a disambiguation page. Think about the implications of this for e.g. Henry VIII or Lady Jane Grey. PatGallacher (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

PatGallacher, do you mean this fictional character should be included in the article about the real life person? Are you a Haigiographer? 64.105.65.28 (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. It would be legitimate to include a "Haig in fiction" section in the article on Haig, as is already the case with several other historical figures who have been dealt with in drama or novels. I don't know what a Hagiographer is. PatGallacher (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you didn't actually say that, nor did you make it so. I think that is a good idea, and it would remove any need to link to the Blackadder characters list. A Haigiographer is someone who writes hagiography concerning someone named Haig. I have content for an article on the actor, if someone would be so kind as to create the page. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you give yourself a Wikipedia identity. We have a "Haig in popular culture" section in his biography. PatGallacher (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify. A lot of the time I am prepared to help anon users or newbies by adding material, but I feel I have to take some responsibility for the material I add. I don't feel able to add contentious material whose notability is likely to be challenged. PatGallacher (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I created the article Douglas Haig (actor), and notability is beyond question. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I accept the notability of the actor has now been established. PatGallacher (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)