Talk:James Fox

File:Jamesfox.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Jamesfox.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status as of 28 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The image for The Chase doesn't look like any other I have seen of the actor James Fox. Notwithstanding the name that in included on the picture (which might have misled someone to use it here) I am sure there a more recognizable image of the subject can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.222.166 (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

extra role

Added in his role in Downton Abbey as Lord Aysgarth in Christmas 2013 edition shown in Britain and Ireland. http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-reviews/downton-abbey-christmas-special-verdict-2955862 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.149.11 (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 1 February 2017

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: Rough consensus not to move. Andrewa (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

---

• James Fox → James Fox (actor)
• James Fox (disambiguation) → James Fox

– User:JarrahTree has proposed that, given the large number of people names "James Fox" (or variations), it is unlikely that the actor is the primary topic of the term. I am neutral on the question, but perhaps the community has a sense of whether this is correct. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC) -->

• Oppose the page view statistics here and hereindicate that the actor is indeed the primary topic for 'James Fox' by a very large margin. Indeed, most of the other pages are very tiny by comparison. The only one that gets close to outstripping it on the dab page is Jamie Foxx (which is of course much more viewed) but that isn't relevant to this discussion.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment although 'primacy' in relation to page view stats is indeed a compelling argument, I felt that the James Fox (actor) is better in the sense that there are so many. As BD2412 states the community response is importantly as to whether my suggestion has any credence. JarrahTree 08:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose 80+% of views is the kind of level where ambiguous titles begin to make sense. If James Fox (actor) was the status quo then deliberately ambiguating the article would have been debatable, but as it stands seems to be causing bearable inconvenience to less than 20% of readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2017 (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.

Brother's military service

This page says that James' brother Edward was commissioned in the Coldstream Guards, as James was. Edwards's own wiki page says: Fox... completed his National Service in the Loyals having failed to gain a commission in the Coldstream Guards.[5][6][7][8]

One of them needs correcting. Valetude (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

'Personal Life' odd content

The 'Personal Life' section of this article reads very oddly.

For one, actors and sons delineation.

And then the including of his children's spouses and their divorces. While these facts, and are doubtless part of his personal life, they don't actually tell us about his personal life (and are readily available from his children's articles).

I'm hesitant to edit it because I don't know if there's precedent, and this is the first I've heard of the chap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PixelVulpix (talk • contribs) 18:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)