This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Hi, is there a rule calling "speculation" anything that's not already happened in a fiction series even though it's 100% sure (like the fact that James Marsters will be a regular member of the cast of Angel next year)?
It's a real question, I'm not being polemical, I just wonder, since I've tried to find such rule in the FAQ's but I haven't succeded. If there is no such rule, I think that we can add the information, it's on the WB site, and both Joss Whedon and James Marsters have talked about it in interviews several times. Laz 21:25 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well, getting no answer I guess I'll revert to my previous entry... feel free to delete it again if there is something wrong with it! (Well, this sentence was kind of useless, of course :-) )Lazarus Long 09:56 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
In an article of Dreamwatch magazine (issue 137 february 2006)the former "Buffy" producers and creator Joss Whedon indicates a plan for a series of (made-for-DVD) movie-length productions. Although nothing have been finalised Whedon confirms that plans are developing for a new Buffy spin-off project featuring James Marsters' vampire Spike. I, for one, hopes that this project will be completed and I'll promise to be first in line to buy the DVDs that continues telling the fascinating stories from Joss Whedons alternative universe. carime borjestedt 22:02 12 Jan 2006 (CET)
The piccolo link goes to the instrument, rather than the character... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.210.84 (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Marsters' accent as the character was near-flawless; even some English people thought he was English."
Speaking as someone who is English I wouldn't say Marsters accent in BTVS/Angel was "near flawless". Whilst his accent was nowhere near as ridiculous as Molly's, it was still pretty contrived. Alexis Denisof (Wesley) on the other hand managed to pull off a pretty much faultless English accent, and it wasn't until recently that I discovered to my surprise he wasn't actually British, yet his article makes no mention of his accent at all. Just wondering basically whether it's valid in this article? --Durzel 09:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James Marsters accent was outstanding. I never knew he was American until I watched an interview. And boy, was I surprised! I'd have to say that his accent was completely flawless, and to be honest, I don't care much for Wesley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.51.198 (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another actual English person stopping by to agree Alexis nailed the English accent far better and more consistently than JM did. I have to say that whether you like a character or not is completely irrelevant to the voice skills of the actor playing him. Uncritical adulation does JM no favours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.222.121 (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As another Brit, I'd like to say I consider James Marster's accent flawless. I certainly never knew he was American until hearing the actor speak out of character. It definitely never sounded contrived to me. 80.195.252.5 (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me like this article needs a notability check. I don't know that what amount to set lists from gigs featuring songs that have never been released are notable enough to be listed here... Anyone? -Porlob 19:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He was in two episodes of Northern Exposure, earlier on as a very small speaking part as a hotel bellboy and then afterwards as the minister. I'm fairly sure he is credited for both on IMDB. 203.206.102.171 15:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It says here[1] that Marsters has a son, born in 1996, with his ex-wife Liane Davidson. Just wondering if this is true, since the site appears to be edited by anyone, and contains no sources. Paul730 06:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i dont know the full wiki rules but most of the stuff in this page is a complete copy and paste from james marsters official website and sounds overly fangurly. Postmoderner 22:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for a list of roles James Masters has been in and was surprised not to find one as almost every other actors page that i have seen has one apart from Stub pages or pages where the actor has only had one or two roles but given the amount of things he has been in and the amount that has been written about him i was hoping there would be one. I would do one my self but i don't know what hes been in --58.169.217.143 (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I made a couple minor changes to the para. about Torchwood. (changed "starred" to "guest starred" and made it generally sound better.) Feel free to revert if not acceptable. Also the sentence "He has also stated that he will return for the third series."... this seems to me something that should be cited. Is it? Hstrypcfr (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James will NOT be reprising his role as Captain John Hart in series 3 of Torchwood... is confirmed, (See the "Children of Earth" wikipedia page), although he is interested in playing Hart again in future episodes, so i have editied that sentence out, i hope that is ok. Also just to note i have changed "and the bisexual time traveller Captain John Hart" to "and the omnisexual time traveller Captain John Hart"...i know in the "other work" section it is stated as "omnisexual" but i'm a bit pedantic, sorry. --CharlotteMarshall (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HE ISN'T CAPTAIN JACK IN TORCHWOOD @ ALL!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.255.182 (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one said he was. John Hart is similar but diffrent to Jack Harkness 182.239.133.247 (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under Filmography for Television, everything is listed in order by date. I'm curious if the way it's set up is correct, though. Wouldn't something that was from 2005-2008 come before something that occurred only in 2008 rather than after? Or is there an ordering rule here that I wasn't previously aware of.
(This question is more out of curiousity rather than a desire to change to order on the page; I just figured it couldn't hurt to ask here.) Sleepsong (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of a rule, but it does make it look better so I've changed it. Thanks for the input! IndulgentReader (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article show James Marsters' place of birth as Sydney, Australia, yet the reference cited shows this as Greenville, CA. Sprout59 (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which photo should used in the Infobox? The Left One or the Right One? Nightscream (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the Left One. Smiling in a convention setting gives us JM as a person while the right one looks like he is getting into character. This is just my opinion and either pic will improve the article. Thanks for your efforts Nightscream. MarnetteD | Talk 00:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the options have increased I will change my preference to the fourth one. MarnetteD | Talk 22:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right - Only downside to the image is he's looking down. Lighting and pose are more interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth option is good too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither I think there are many free and better ones here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No idea how I got tagged to add to this discussion, but Neither photo is all that flattering. The one on the Right is *marginally* better, but still. You can do better, internet. - Sleepsong (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There seems to be even better options in the commons category. Such as this one:
I like that it has his name behind it. Jhenderson777 00:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh! Yeah, but he looks awful in that pic! I took that with the dinky little Casio camera I used to use before acquiring the professional DSLR camera with which I took the left one above. The lighting in the earlier one is harsh, his expression isn't very warm, and his pose looks like little more than a mug shot. That's why I didn't replace it after I took that one. Oh well. To each his own. Nightscream (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok...I am preferring a lot of the choices after this one anyways. Jhenderson777 18:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Slight preference for Right: Strong preference for cropped "right" version, now E (below). Better photo w/ low clutter, no flash, no glare. Note: we've done this enough times, now, folks - lettered candidates make for e-z expansion & voting. --Lexein (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Followup - still prefer this for the infobox, because it's more recent (2010) and doesn't awkwardly catch the subject mid-word. See my cropped version E below. --Lexein (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Anna, neither of those two are terrible, and acceptable if nothing else, but there appear to be many better options.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Third image is my first preference, left image is my second preference. BOZ (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The new fourth image seems better to me than the rest. BOZ (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that while I am not familiar with the MOS regarding the primary photograph for a biographical article (or any article, for that matter ^_^;), IMHO that photograph should be both representative of the person (as, for instance, Rachael Leigh Cook's is not, since AFAICT she is rarely blonde—not to start another argument ^_^) and make identifying that person easy. While I think that the second image is the most interesting, I feel that image #3 is better for those purposes, followed by image #2, as they both show all of Mr. Marsters' face.—DocWatson42 (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at everything at Commons, I think this one would be the best. It shows his face, there is no clutter with logos in the background or water bottles in the foreground, it is of high quality, plus I personally hate the photographers who 1) add there name to the file name, and 2) place undue restrictions on the use of the work (ones that I think could get them deleted from Commons). This one also looks good at 175px which is around what an infobox photo should be at. Of those above, the top left one, but cropped, would be the best one. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it doesn't matter much. We need something representative, and in a sense timeless. We don't want to be coming back every five years to update the photo. Just pick out your random really famous person and check out the headshots we use in the infobox. Bill Clinton's is from 1993; Sean Connery's is from 2008. Some other famous people's are more recent, but I don't think age is that important. If there was one of the same quality as this one and more recent, sure, then go with the more recent one. But I'll take a good quality photo from 10 years ago over one taken from 100 feet away using a cell phone from last week. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None proposed thus far. Each of the four images has problems (respectively: uncroppable product brand name and bad background, looks like promotional head shot, overexposed areas from flash and strangely unflattering, angle too crooked for infobox) that aren't easily solvable through simple editing. If I had to pick one of the four, I'd pick the one proposed by Jhenderson777. Maybe someone with a deft touch could fix the flash problem in Photoshop, idk. Rivertorch (talk) 09:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The one currently used in the photobox on the article, i.e. the one on the right. It's the cleanest of the four, to me. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The left one. It is friendlier and seems more natural. David A (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the right one is slightly better, but I'm not impressed by any of the four suggested so far. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of the original two, the left. The third posted by Jhenderson is even better. And the fourth posted by aboutmovies is the best so far. --luckymustard (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly neither of the original two. I don't prefer the third. The fourth image provided by Aboutmovies is the most suitable, in my opinion. Many of the images on Flickr or in commons could be incorporated into the article, but I didn't see many that were suitable for an infobox image. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth is the best. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 20:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.I like the fourth one too. Remember I said most of the commons one is better and I used one example. Jhenderson777 23:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although if age is a problem with some I might still prefer the Big Apple Convention linked....but aboutmovies does make a good point on age doesn't really matter all the time. Jhenderson777 00:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth option, cropped version of "right": E. Comic Con 2010 cropped ("right"). (My !vote is above) --Lexein (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:James Marsters DragonCon 2007-1.jpg is my preference from this selection, but I would encourage someone more familiar with the subject to look around at Flickr for an even better alternative if there is one available. Perhaps something like this? Tyrol5[Talk] 16:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on James Marsters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have made futile attempts to update and correct the Dresden Files section. The ENTIRE section needs to be rewritten, it has clearly had sentences added to the point that it is nonsense. Can anyone assist o this? I have made several attempts but hitting a wall even on the smallest of corrections. Lorethiel (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Impartially written and properly sourced additions are always welcome. --‖ Ebyabetalk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 05:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on James Marsters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on James Marsters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
