Talk:James Jackson

Adding redlinks to disambiguation pages

The recent edit war needs to get resolved. The issue seems to be whether or not a red link should be added to a disambiguation page. Elsewhere, I've referred to Wikipedia:Red Link (prefers leaving redlinks in place), Wikipedia:Red Link#Avoiding creation of certain types of red links (redlinks to a person's name should be avoided), and Wikipedia:Write the article first (some think redlinks should be avoided altogether), but I haven't seen any comment on any of that.

@EauZenCashHaveIt: Some of your arguments refer to notability, which doesn't seem a strong point of defense to me. The Internet Movie Database shows quite a few credits for him in mainstream movies. I'd consider him notable, and it's only matter of time, I think, before he *does* have an article in Wikipedia.

I also note that with a few more reverts, the total amount of effort spent will surpass the amount of work required for the ideal solution: somebody create the article. Willondon (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Willondon: I agree that the article should have been created a while ago. My main problem is with the order of events: Midas warns me on my talk page about restoring content that was disputed by another editor, then continues to restore such content ad nauseum, telling me that... if my memory serves me correctly, I "forfeited my right to be heard". This is sheer bullying, and the disputed content should stay out of the article until a solution is found. If Midas wants to create the article then more power to him. So far, I've been persistently alienated... excuse me for not being in the most cheerful of moods right now. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I was really hoping to use this talk page to discuss the merits of the edits themselves as they apply to this disambiguation article. I'm disappointed because I haven't seen any response to my efforts to comment on that. Willondon (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Willondon: Sorry, I guess I got caught up in the self defense moment. Regarding the edits, I believe that creating an article, even a short one, would be the perfect solution. This way we establish said person's notability and aside from the disambiguation page, begin linking to his article from respective TV show and film articles. Midas seems to know that particular actor, therefore it might be a good idea for him to start creating the article. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 08:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Rebooting the discussion:

I was confused by the reinstatement "per talk page". [1] As I read the discussion so far, the consensus is for not including the red link. I don't know why Midas02 hasn't provided any input here, but let me summarize my arguments from a different angle:

My overall view is best expressed in Wikipedia:Write the article first, but the policy at Wikipedia:Red Link has a long and respected history. The subject is likely to become increasingly notable, and a red link to encourage creation of the article is a good example of the reason behind that policy. But there's also Wikipedia:Red Link#Disambiguation pages, which says "Use of redlinks on disambiguation pages should be limited."

I don't know why Midas02 hasn't participated in the discussion. I understand that in some cases we can't be bothered to spend the time and effort to hammer out a resolution with discussion, but when I can't be bothered, I certainly don't expect the edit to be made to my liking without any effort on my part.

I'll mention again that the best solution is to create the article. I agree with the suggestion that Midas02 is the best candidate for that so far, but I understand why they might not take the time. In almost ten years on Wikipedia, I've never created an article, because of the work involved. It also got me to wondering: doesn't this poor bloke have friends, family or fans that would create the article? He's done some notable work, and he's bound to get notabler, so I think it's just a matter of time. My two cents. Willondon (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Amendment: I retract my previous speculation as to why Midas02 has not participated here. I see now that resolution has been sought elsewhere, at 3RR. Willondon (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Willondon: As I noted on the noticeboard, that report is flawed since I was never notified of it. This is also consistent with Midas02's modus operandi of punching his way through. Surely, this cannot be condoned. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know how I can convey more clearly or forcefully that I don't wish to discuss editors or their disputes. That's why I started this discussion on Talk:James Jackson. Willondon (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, how about the revert that JUST happened? Bkonrad just reverted back to Midas02's version without an edit summary and without saying a word here. There is a clear pattern of forcing the content into the page. I am still a willing participant, but there seems to be very little response from the warriors. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving Forward - Bkonrad, I apologize for my blunt revert. [2] I realize there are arguments in favour of the edit. Unfortunately, inappropriate escalation means they've been scattered across 3RR and ANI's half acre. Given some time, I expect I can summarize and repatriate those arguments to this talk page, where they should have appeared all along. I suggest none of the interested editors make any more changes until it's hashed out here. Let us leave the edit in place until consensus can approve or improve it. Willondon (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

As I explained here, there are two independent criteria to consider: WP:DABMENTION and WP:DABRL. The first regards whether an entry merits inclusion on a dab page in any form at all and the second concerns whether the entry should include a redlink. Taken at face value, it appears that Jamie Jackson (actor) passes both criteria. Whether the redlinks that existed in the articles before the current kerfuffle here should remain redlinks is a content discussion that is not directly a concern of disambiguation. If editors of those articles in which the redlinks appear agree that actor doesn't need a redlink (after all, not all performers are notable) then we might have reason to have an entry on the disambiguation page in which the performer is linked only in the description without a redlink. older ≠ wiser 16:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what all has gone on... The actor should not have a mention in the Dab page. He is not notable and has played mostly minor parts in TV series. Having the link on the Dab page going to a TV pilot just shows how non-notable the person is. There are another 20 actors with variations on James Jackson that could be listed, but are not notable. Disambig pages are not to list every combination.
BD2412 is more knowledgeable on this and I usually follow their lead. Bgwhite (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:DABMENTION is the relevant criteria for inclusion on a disambiguation page. I absolutely agree that Jamie Jackson (actor) should not redirect to the disambiguation page, and it's nothing to me if the actor is not notable enough to be redlinked in the various articles in which he is mentioned. But that does not preclude inclusion on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 02:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the actor meets WP:DABMENTION and is appropriate to include. bd2412 T 02:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Question: I keep seeing reference to WP:DABMENTION as providing some criteria that can be met. I'm confused, because I don't see anything like that. (I'm reading the section Items appearing within other articles until it ends at Acronyms, initialisms, and abbreviations. I just see instruction on how to make the edit, assuming that the topic doesn't have an article of its own, but is mentioned in other articles. Am I missing something? (undoubtedly, yes) Willondon (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The subject, in this case the actor Jamie Jackson, does not have an article of his own, but is mentioned within another article (several actually), and as such a link to that article should be included -- the linked article is the article that mentions the subject, or in this case, one of the articles, ideally the one that provides the best context for that subject. older ≠ wiser 19:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still seeing it as not conferring notability, but rather showing how to edit where notability is assumed, and the no-article-but-mentioned-elsewhere situation applies. I haven't given the whole MOS article a comprehensive read, though. Maybe it will be clear to me after that. Willondon (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Notability is not a consideration. Of course if there is little or no likelihood of anyone searching for a particular unnotable subject that happens to be mentioned in some article somewhere, there is no requirement to include it. But including an actor mentioned in multiple articles (and still active) is not unreasonable. older ≠ wiser 22:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So meeting the criteria at WP:DABMENTION means appearing in other articles, even though the topic has no article itself. That makes sense to me. Thanks. Willondon (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

BD2412 Then ,lets add the 20 other actors and all the CEOs/presidents of small businesses. I remember you, I and a few others removing alot of these from dab articles a few years back. I guess it's changed and non-notables who had a 30-second part in Law and Order franchise shows now get mentioned again. How many I've removed that had the part of "janitor" or "cop #2". Sad. Bgwhite (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Bkonrad, calling me an ass, violating 3RR, YELLING in edit summaries and reverting everytime does not help. Try being civil. You don't have to live up to your reputation for a change. I said I'd follow BD2412's lead and will do so in this case. Bgwhite (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite, you stepped into the middle of this apparently without even a cursory examination of the history and started throwing around baseless accusations and making edits without any basis in the applicable guidelines. I apologize if my temper is a bit frayed on this matter. I found you to be a reasonable editor in the past, so I was a little taken aback by your actions in this regard. But honestly, where the heck did you come up with Little Eric? Is that supposed to mean something? And I've no idea what you mean by my "reputation for change". older ≠ wiser 03:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Now you've added calling me lazy and stupid. I called your violating 3RR actions pathetic and get this in return. You have reverted three people in this discussion. That is not good. I got in the middle of deleting redirects to itself with EauZenCashHaveIt, plus warning him of edit warring. EauZenCashHaveIt asked me a question which brought me here. I've read what is on this page. Things seem muddled with no one side prevailing. I asked a disambig person to comment here, thus bringing in a neutral, 3rd party. Obviously things have changed over the past few years. I said I'd abide by the 3rd party and I will. I'm done. Bgwhite (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)