Talk:Paterson Joseph

message: Removed the description of him as 'black', it's completely unnecessary. --Oldy 23:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Black

message: The first section is very badly written, in fact the opening line isn't even a full sentence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.15.50 (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Career

message: Until there is an official announcement from the BBC do not add details of Paterson's alleged role as the 11th Doctor. Only a verifiable press release from the BBC is enough to warrant inclusion on this article. magnius (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Says who?  This is a news story ref'd in a significant number of news sources: whether he gets the job or not, it is notable.  Please refrain from telling fellow editors what may or may not "warrant inclusion" in this unacceptably high-handed manner. 81.151.186.178 (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed - there have been perhaps a dozen people rumoured to be in the running for the part and it isn't usually TV or film policy to include mentions of parts they are rumoured to be up for until this is confirmed (can you imagine the mess articles would descend into if we did that?). Bear in mind: WP:DEADLINE, we can afford to wait, rather than throw in showbiz gossip. (Emperor (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctor Who Rumours

message: There's a fair amount of repeated info in this article: appearances listed in both the body of the article and in the table below the main text.  Anyone think it needs pruning?  Twilight1701 (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition 

message: I know we need 'free' photos for articls, but the "waiting at a railway station" shot is a bit...intrusive? Any chance this could be replaced? doktorb wordsdeeds 14:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good for you... If you don't like it, why not try and find a better one, or clean this one up, rather than just complaining? I think the image is perfectly adequate. Gran2 10:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A fuzzy, grainy image of him with his eyes closed is not good enough, we can agree on that. However it is NOT up to Wikipedia editors to now stalk Mr Jospeh hoping for him to pose in a manner adequate to our needs. We tidy up prose when it is not good enough, so we should tidy up pictures when they do not fit the bill too. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's your view, then fine, but "we can agree on that", no, I do disagree with you. As I said, I think the image is perfectly adequate. Gran2 11:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, we will not agree! I cannot see how a grainy shot of a man with his eyes closed is deemed adequate. But on this topic we could go on for weeks, it would seem...doktorb wordsdeeds 12:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper... 

message: For some reason (excluding nonsense reasons like Joseph didn't give permission for it to be taken and that it is poor quality) the i/box image keeps getting removed from the page. If anyone has to the time to jump through all the OTRS permission hoops, they might want to contact his agency (Hamilton Hodell) and ask if they'd like to donate a freely-licensed image. Bradley0110 (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favour of reinstating the image. Yes, it's not the best quality, but it is freely licensed. In my opinion, the image shouldn't be removed unless we have a better freely licensed image to replace it with. The image adds value because it shows the subject of the article, so in my opinion, it should stay. Readro (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've always thought a free image was a lot better than no image; "poor quality" doesn't really sit with me as a reason. Gran2 16:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No hang on. The actor is shown at a railway station, listening to music, with his eyes closed. Do we have proof that this photo was taken with his permission? Because unless we're gonna start allowing Wiki editors to peruse famous people with telephoto lenses, I'd hesitate before reinstating this image. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo was taken in St Pancras railway station, which is a public place. Consent is not required if in a public place. Readro (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The prospective policy on whether permission is needed is over here: Image use policy#Privacy rights.  It appears to back up what Readro says. The Parting Glass (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Readro; this is a famous person in a public place, permission is not required. It would be different if he had been unknowingly photographed through the window of his living room. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the image is a quality issue, it is blurred, grainy and he has his eyes closed. Wiki has a policy that images should be clear and focused unless there is a good reason. In this case, no picture is the best option until somebody can provide a decent image. magnius (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Agree, it's bollocks. But to some Wikeditors, the lowest common denominator is the easiest is the best. Shame. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it, concurring with Magnius 'it is blurred, grainy and he has his eyes closed. Wiki has a policy that images should be clear and focused unless there is a good reason' and emailed his agency. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Paterson Joseph became active at least three years earlier than the date given in the article. His CV shows him at the Young Vic, National Theatre and other theatres as early as 1989 .  
He joined the RSC in 1990 when he appeared in a number of productions, not least Sam Mendes' production of Troilus and Cressida where he played Patroclus opposite Ralph Fiennes, Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. This production transferred from The Swan, Stratford to The Pit in 1991 
Megra (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks as if someone's taken the year 1992 from his earliest listing on IMDB.  His TV work certainly dates back to at least 1990.  And it seems his theatre work goes back to 1988, working with a company called "Cheek By Jowl".  Any advances on 1988, or can we stick that in the infobox? The Parting Glass (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No one's objected in the last 22 hours, so I'm assuming it's ok to proceed. The Parting Glass (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years active