Talk:Doug Jones (actor)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyright

The biography is just taken from his home page [1] - I've asked Hellmistress for clarification but thought it worth droppin a note in here too. I would imagine that the biography probably also violates NPOV guidelines so it will need some reworking I just want to know what we are working from before going ahead. (Emperor 02:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

I used the biography I wrote for Doug's site back in 2004. As his Webmaster I hold full copyright for the biography, and also any information about Doug that I post here at Wikipedia. I have also tried to keep the biography as neutral as I can without being bland, and I've attempted to keep as tightly as possible to NPOV guidelines - for example, Doug did speak his Spanish perfectly, according to the Spanish-speaking director and crew. But if you feel the biography violates these guidelines, then I will happily take any suggestions you have on board. Hellmistress 18:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks for the clarification (its why I didn't add the copyright violation tags. I've removed:

• Your signature form the entry - you only add it in discussion areas
• "sensitive and elegant" to give "But it was his performance as Abe Sapien" - you and I might think it was sensitive and elegant but you need to prove it so if respected reviewer said it then feel free to add "But it was his performance as Abe Sapien, which ?? of the ?? called 'sensitive and elegant,'"
• " - which he did perfectly" to give "he also was required to learn huge chunks of dialogue in archaic Spanish." - again, as above, if you have a quote from Guillermo del Toro saying he did it perfectly then drop it in (with a reference to the source).

Thanks for expanding the entry (and working on some related entries) I'm a fan of his work (and am really looking forward to Pan's Labyrinth) and its good to see such a good entry. One extra thing is that the image of him you upload probably needs the licensing clarfiying - best tags for this (wrap them in double curly brackets) are promotional and withpermission. Hope that helps. (Emperor 14:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC))

Umm... actually, as a writer, you probably don't own the copyright to the material you wrote; your publisher does. In which case, if it's Doug Jones's web site, it's HIS copyrighted material and you have no right to it. I might just be speculating; can someone confirm? -Midnightdreary 15:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I should also add that you definitely don't own the copyright to anything you put on Wikipedia - it's a "copy left" free use site. =) -Midnightdreary 16:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I own and run Doug's website - the words and article are mine. I published it. Ergo, I own the copyright as owner of the site. I'm also happy to share that work here on Wikipedia as a free use site. Oh, and by the way - everything on the site is posted after approval by Doug, and what you get is fact and nothing else. Therefore, for example, if the site says that Doug has never worked in a green screen leotard, then that's straight from Doug and not second-hand from a website that has not done its homework. I must admit to objecting to having to put citations from dubious web articles rather than put a citation to a page on Doug's site that has nothing but the fact straight from the actor himself. But I believe I'm not allowed to do that? Hellmistress 01:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. WP:COI means "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." source. Best thing you can do is follow the advice there and drop the link into a talk page. Seems a bit silly but thems the rules (I know because I've fallen afoul of them myself). If you want you can drop me a note on my talk page pointing me to whatever it is and, if someone hasn't already got it, I'll sort it out (if it is within guidelines, of course ;) ). (Emperor 01:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

Archaic Spanish?

I realize that alot of the information here is just lifted from his website, and therefore not necessarily the fault/responsibility of the person placing it here, but it seemed to me that the faun was simply speaking Castillian Spanish. Granted, my Spanish isn't as good as it used to be, but I didn't hear anything archaic about the way he was speaking.

Perhaps someone with a better grasp of Spanish could clarify? Perhaps there are subtleties I'm missing. 68.116.143.113 06:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I run Doug's website, and I posted the information here, so you can be assured it's accurate - the information all comes from Doug himself. As for the Spanish ... I don't speak the language, but I'm assured that the variation El Fauno speaks is an older form of Castillian Spanish. Hellmistress 07:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice he address the girl as vos. "Vos estades" = archaic Spanish.

Due weight to film appearances

The current wording seems to give too much emphasis to his roles in Mystery Men (where he played Pencilhead in a bit part), and Batman Returns (where he is credited as "Thin Clown"). I'm not quite sure what the best approach to revising that section would be, but I think its important that we avoid giving the impression that he was a lead in those films. Serpent's Choice 09:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The wording merely says that he can be seen without prosthetics in those particular films - nowhere does it mention that he is the lead or otherwise. Hellmistress 01:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The best approach would be to remove the "with X" bits as it makes it sound like he co-starred in those films. The final sentence needs work. Make it its own paragraph (as it follows on the end of a discussion of him without prosthetics) but tone it way down or move it to the start of the paragraph.

Jones is known mostly for his work under prosthetic makeup, in particular his performance as Abe Sapien in Hellboy. However, he has also appeared without prosthetics in such films as Adaptation, Mystery Men, Batman Returns, and indie projects such as Stefan Haves' Stalled, Phil Donlon's A Series of Small Things, and as 'Cesare' in David Lee Fisher's 2005 remake of the 1919 silent classic The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.

Something like that. I'd also query such statements as: "Doug has continued his collaboration with del Toro into 2006, as he reprised his role as Abe Sapien by voicing the character in the new Hellboy Animated television project, recording two 75-minute animated films" as del Toro has little to do with the animated series. (Emperor 02:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

That would work. As for the animated films ... Guillermo is a Consulting Producer, along with Mike Mignola, and worked a great deal on the two animated films alongside Mike and Supervising Director/Producer Tad Stones. Whether this will continue if the third film is green-lit, I don't know, but GdT is very much involved in 'Sword of Storms' and 'Blood and Iron.' Hellmistress 07:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The Voice of Abe Sapien in Hellboy II: The Golden Army

There have been erroneous reports that the voice of Abe Sapien will be once again provided by David Hyde Pierce - this is incorrect. Doug will be playing ALL of Abe in the film. Hellmistress 17:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Silver Surfer: NOT motion capture

There is continuous use of the phrase 'motion capture' to describe Doug's peformance in Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. This is untrue. Doug has stated many times in interviews that he has NEVER done motion capture in a film in his career, including this film. The Silver Surfer is a combination of Doug's acting performance, a prosthetic suit designed by Spectral Motion, and digital enhancement by WETA. Hellmistress 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Doug's involvement in The Hobbit

Despite inferences by Guillermo del Toro that Doug will be in The Hobbit, Doug has not yet been approached to do so. He has said publicly that he would love to be in the film(s), but that is all. There is nothing official as yet. Hellmistress (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Religious views

I checked his bio and there is no mention of his spirituality anywhere on the site. Is there a cite available for the line "He is also a Christian(cite a quote perhaps?), speaking at many youth gatherings(cite) and festivals(cite) concerning spirituality and creativity." This is an interesting point and if true probably could be expanded on as his movies could be seen as somewhat at odds with an Evangelical world view. Mrrealtime (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't mentioned in his biography, and I didn't add this to his biography here, but if you check his news archive you will see various appearances he has made at Christian events, which he does when time allows. He has also made indie films with a spiritual message, for example A Series of Small Things, which often get shown at film festivals with a spiritual bent, like DAMAH and 168. He has spoken to film-makers at both festivals about his career and his faith. He also spoke, for example, at chapel at George Fox University about his faith and how he deals with being a Christian in an industry and also a genre that often appears to be at odds with his beliefs. I'm not allowed post citations as I run his site (it apparently smacks of self-promotion), so I'm afraid you'll have to do so. Sorry about that.Hellmistress (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

GAINSBOURG: VIE HEROIQUE

For some reason reference was removed to Doug's work in this film - I have reinstated it, although I can't cite a source because I run Doug's Official Site and I'm not allowed to do so. The information on that site is OFFICIAL - straight from Doug, and cannot be refuted, unlike a lot of unreliable website sources. So ...

Doug Jones IS in the film, playing a character called 'La Gueule' and has been working with the Oscar-winning team of DDT Efectos Speciales, with whom he worked on 'Pan's Labyrinth.'

http://www.thedougjonesexperience.com/gainsbourg.htm

Hellmistress (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Adequate citations have been located now. Sometimes these things take time. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]]) 09:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Primary topic... past and future, but not present!

This was clearly the primary Doug Jones topic for years and editors missed their many chances to move it. I suggest wait a few months (at most a few years) until the other Doug Jones drops out of the news, then make an appropriate effort to move this. Who knows what will happen in 2020; Republican voters will kick the politician Doug Jones out of the senate, but the campaign could drive him back into headlines. We might have to wait until 2021. Meanwhile, if you're interested, build this article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Height?

Is there a reliable source as to Doug's height? The few roles I have seen him play often portray him as quite tall, so how tall is he? Nutster (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

There's no reason to believe his website isn't reliable when it says he is 6ft3in and a half but maybe you meant secondary sources that are the Wikipedia version of reliable? -- 109.79.169.232 (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 6 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Doug Jones (actor) → Doug Jones – It's time. If you compare page views it is clear the actor is the primary topic. Try another period of time, you will need to be very selective to find any alternative primary topic. Google searches for me had the actor 8 of the top 11 results (first page). Both he and the politician are hitting the news hard, but the actor is 7 of the top 10 Google news results for me. Looking at page views in other languages, the politician is virtually unknown outside the English-speaking world (I'd say unknown outside the US, but I haven't gone to the effort of finding objective evidence), whereas Wikipedia articles about the actor receive thousands of views in many languages. Long term, I believe the boxer (not the politician) is second to the actor in notability, but most editors are too young to recognize this, and nonetheless the actor is the topic that interests the vast majority of readers. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose Simply too much competition. If you think that the boxer would be second to the actor in notability, then there's more competition with 3 significant people competing. There's ~78% to the actor in the one year range, which is substantial, but also influenced by many factors like shape of water getting oscars and consequent increase to his page views etc. Looking at it another way, Doug Jones the senator has been consistently getting 1000 views a day; the actor was generally getting similar numbers just 6 months ago. If the actors page views drop off over the next few years and the senator continues getting that much or nearly so... The actor doesn't look to have any great long-term significance either. All this would likely cause is a lot of bad links (as linking Doug Jones would no longer be signified as a DAB) for no real benefit. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I deliberately didn't mention what might happen over the next few years. I don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL, but I have mentioned below the endurance of interest in movie actors, and Doug Jones the senator will likely be done after one term in a generally safe Republican seat. He was in the right place at the right time; Daisy Duck would have won that election if she was the Democratic candidate. He'll get another blip for the next election, and nothing but static thereafter. Incorrect links to Doug Jones is a very minor issue, easily fixed. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose move. I simply see no primary topic at this point. ONR (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose fails WP:PT2, and the target is a dab page. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Fails WP:PT2? How so? "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." You can see from page views that usage is much higher than all other topics combined, and has been consistently so for a long time except for a political "blip." Not only are none of the other Doug Joneses close, even combined they are only about 20% of total page views for all Doug Joneses. 80% of page views easily meets the first major aspect. The second is harder to measure, but for long term significance you only need to look at the long list of movie roles. Film is an enduring medium, actors from a hundred years ago are still very notable and culturally significant. In contrast, we don't see much discussion of single-term senators from Alabama a hundred years ago. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This may be easier to assess if we wait a little bit. We have a Doug Jones who starred in a movie that just won the best picture Oscar, and another who was part of an incredibly high profile US election. So while it's possible the actor may be the primary, it may be easier to wait until things have calmed down a bit and we can judge without recentism as a major factor.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The actor is the primary topic. I'm hoping people recognize that an earlier move is better. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even if the Senator is a one-term wonder... so what? Such people can still be very notable. See Scott_Brown_(politician)#Post-Senate_career for an example of a well-known name. SnowFire (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – a disambiguation page is the best option for this situation. There is no clear primary topic and long term significance for the actor. CookieMonster755✉ 00:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.