Talk:Nicholas Woodeson

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment 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 supported by the arts and entertainment work group. England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Theatre Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

More biographical information on this under-appreciated character actor would be great if anyone can find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wachholder0 (talk • contribs) 15:05, February 15, 2007 (UTC)

The recent deletion of the "References" section in favor of a "Trivia" paragraph may well have been an accident. The deletion has been restored, but may I draw attention to

There really is no need for this on an article of this size and per

@Cassianto: I'm afraid I don't understand, is it alright if you explain? (I apologize for my ignorance on policies and infobox etiquette) The Verified Cactus 100% 00:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have to look at what benefits this infobox offers this article. In the box you added we have a name, date of birth, date of death and occupation. Well, so does the lead - all in the first line, and a much better job it does too. An infobox is designed to be a summary of an entire article; at 5,000 bytes, this article is not comprehensive enough to warrant such an eyesore in the top right hand side of the article, as most of the information can readily and easily be found within the first line of the lead section. According to the MoS: ""The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." So it is a complete myth that infoboxes are a conformity. I would rather you spend the 564 bytes that an infobox adds in size, on reliable sourced text about Woodeson's life and career, instead. Cassianto^Talk 08:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 19:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still find an image though, that would be a good improvement. Did you have one in mind? Cassianto^Talk 23:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not too familiar with image copyright policy either, so I'm not sure which images would be free to use. Do you know if there are any sources for free images of people? Flickr? The Verified Cactus 100% 16:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His era goes against him, unfortunately, and I should very much doubt that there is a free image of him out there. There could only be two situations of a free image being out there: if the licence allows for it on somewhere like Flickr; or if

Wikipedia:Contact OTRS. That's worked for me in the past. Cassianto^Talk 18:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]