Talk:Jamie Campbell Bower

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BLP violation?[edit]

Dear 75.47.128.20 (talk · contribs), you have stated that this edit violates WP:BLP. I would like to know which aspect of BLP policy is being violated. Please note that there are two sections in the edit and that your revert has thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Also note that when making a serious charge, such as BLP violation, that you need to cite which section of the policy has been violated, you can't expect us to read your mind and accept that as truth. Elizium23 (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that the aforementioned editor has been blocked, ironically for violating BLP policy. I think the argument is now moot. Elizium23 (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Movie role[edit]

Jamie Campbell Bower also has a lead role in the Dutch movie "Winter in Wartime" which was released 18 March 2011. He plays the role of Jack, a British airman shot down over Holland during WWII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.89.205 (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Character name in The Mortal Instruments (series)[edit]

The character name as stated in The Mortal Instruments (series) is Jace Wayland. It is mentioned in the article Jace Wayland that his surname changes throughout the series between four different names. For consistency's sake, we should establish consensus on what to call him in this article. I suggest Wayland, because that is how he is listed in the series article. Elizium23 (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image[edit]

I reverted the change to the infobox not only because it was not discussed here first, but also because the image is only 150x150 pixels and of inferior quality to the one that was already there. It was also not any more recent, being also from 2009. I could be convinced to support adding the other image somewhere in the article for the sake of illustration, but I would not recommend restoring it to the infobox. Elizium23 (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I'm sorry I forgot to discuss changing the picture. I saw the picture, and it wasn't my favorite, so I thought I would change it. For the record I'm pretty sure that picture was from 2011. But anyways, I found a newer picture that is from the ELLE Style Awards. Here are a variety or pictures I think you should consider using. http://gossip-dance.blogspot.com/2012/02/photos-jamie-campell-bower-at-2012-elle.html
ConnorDSimmons (talk)ConnorDSimmons —Preceding undated comment added 04:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that the image you submitted has insufficient copyright status. Did you know that Wikipedia only uses freely licensed images for biographies? It is not permitted to simply copy an image from the web and use it. The person who took File:JamieCampbellBowerCCJuly09.jpg posted it to Flickr with a Creative Commons license, and gave permission for its use on Wikipedia. This is the kind of thing we need to adhere to closely. Wikipedia is built of freely licensed information, and non-free works can only be used in limited circumstances. Thank you for your understanding. Elizium23 (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The picture still bothers me for some reason. I did some looking around and I found a picture of him on Flickr. It is a picture of him in the movie Camelot which aired this year. On Flickr it says "Some rights reserved". Does this mean we are aloud to use it on here? http://www.flickr.com/photos/anhonorablegerman/6997359128/
ConnorDSimmons (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that image is licensed CC-BY 2.0, which is a compatible license for Wikipedia. You should tag the image with {{flickrreview}} when uploading it on Commons, so that a reviewer can confirm the license is compatible. Elizium23 (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Thanks for your patience and understanding. ConnorDSimmons (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I uploaded it now on Commons. Would you be against me making it his new picture? ConnorDSimmons (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused... How do you tag images? ConnorDSimmons (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry, but I was mistaken. I did not look closely at the image and it turns out it cannot be licensed that way. The image was stolen from the web and republished illegally by that author using Commons:Commons:License laundering. Sorry to disappoint you. Elizium23 (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

personal life[edit]

Jamie's personal life

Hi . I'm a huge fan of Jamie, . a note on then engagement being called off in june 2012, i think ti was called off before that but it wasn't announced till ast year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.195.40 (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New image discussion[edit]

It is blurry. It looks like he has a microphone growing out of his chin. His hair is messy. Elizium23 (talk) 04:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dating gossip is trivia[edit]

Gossip about who Bower has dated for a few months is trivia and kind of irrelevant to a biography of his professional work. There is no need to keep it in the article. Consensus is growing across WP:ACTOR project to leave out trivial relationships until they are noteworthy, i.e. they become engaged or life partners, etc. Elizium23 (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to engage in an edit war, but the other editors restoring this trivia have not discussed it here. I invite you to achieve consensus here to include the material here rather than edit-warring to keep it in. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an issue of gossip or non-gossip. It is an issue of proper citation and sourcing, see WP:Source. If you are unfamiliar with the general rule then read this link. An edit with a verifiable citation should not be deleted by wiki rules and procedures. If you have an opposing citation you may add it to the edit according to wiki policy. 66.99.0.84 (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)— 66.99.0.84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Of course it can and will be deleted. This is not about verifiability. Certainly "reliable" sources spend much time and energy reporting who is dating whom in the Hollywood world. However, WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. And Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Some things are not notable or encyclopedic enough to rise to the level of inclusion in a biography of a living person. Wikipedia should be concerned about Bower's career and public life, not about people he dates. If he ate the same thing on Wednesday every week, would that be notable for inclusion here? Nope, and neither is his current girlfriend. There is growing consensus at WP:ACTOR to remove dating gossip from articles, but as we can see, there are plenty of anonymous IPs here at this article willing to cram it back in with a drive-by edit. It is most unwelcome. Elizium23 (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jamie Campbell Bower. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jamie Campbell Bower. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google search infobox[edit]

Hi, the infobox is a major spoiler for people who have not watched the 7th episode of Season 4. Not sure what kind of edit is needed to adjust that.

"James Metcalfe Campbell Bower is an English actor, singer, and model. He has played the roles of Henry Creel/Vecna in Stranger Things, Anthony Hope in Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, ... Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanum12 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

@Fisforfenia: I've pasted your comment here as it's a more appropriate place for further discussion. – 2.O.Boxing 13:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Squared.Circle.Boxing! Thanks for letting me know about your changes. I would like to inform you, as well, that one of the links, specifically somewhereintheshadows.com, has to be written, at least in my opinion, as it is his official website similar to the websites other artists have e.g. Ariana Grande. Now, therealcounterfeit.com is the official website for the band he was on before starting his solo musical debut, Counterfeit, which has been separated by its members. So it is not an official page for him, so I believe it can be omitted. Why do I write he above? It is that because I want to explain why I believe those links should be in his page so, at least, I hope you can accept somewhereintheshadows.com as a link. In that point, let me highlight the fact that before adding the second website, Counterfeit's website was there for a really long time, maybe years without changing, and his website had been there for a long time too, meaning that a lot of users had accepted both. I hope you understand. Thank you. fenia🖤tellmehi 12:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons for removing them are per WP:ELNO which states, Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article, and also per WP:ELOFFICIAL which states, Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself.

The somewhereintheshadows link does not provide any additional information that can't be found in the article and it doesn't give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself.

We don't include links simply because they're "official". They need to be of use. And per WP:ELMIN, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence. I also don't think the length of time a link has been in an article is indicative of acceptance. It could be that nobody has bothered to check them out properly, which happens with inappropriate external links all the time.

Do you have any compelling reasons to go against the above guidelines? – 2.O.Boxing 13:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2022[edit]

Delete the words "as Vecna" from the second paragraph of the opening summary. It's not necessary, and it's a major spoiler for the season. 159.196.169.94 (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Spoilers are not a reason to remove information. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is inaccurate to label him Vecna/Henry Creel/One as that is not his character name until late in the season. He is listed as the Friendly Orderly in all of his credits on IMDB, and other than on this page, is not officially credited as playing the character Vecna. Legomonkeyman997 (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger Things Character Name[edit]

IMDB lists his character as the Friendly Orderly in season 4 of stranger things, as does netflix. While I understand spoilers are not a valid reason for editing a page, it is incorrect to label his character Henry Creel/Vecna/One, at least at this time, as that is not the name of the character that the creators published. This cod be something to go into more detail on in his career section, but it is inaccurate for a summary. Legomonkeyman997 (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His role is listed as Henry Creel/One/Vecna in the article body. Listing it as anything else in the lead would be an inaccurate summary of the article body for the sole purpose of removing a WP:SPOILER. – 2.O.Boxing 13:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect, factually, not based on opinion. The correct character name is the one the creators and writers of the show gave him. If it changes from Friendly Orderly to Henry Creel/Vecna/One in the season 5 listing, it would be correct to list his character name as that. It would have the added benefit of removing a spoiler by using Friendly Orderly, but it would also accurately reflect what the official name is at this point and time. I have yet to have anyone explain why it is correct to have his character name as Henry Creel/Vecna/One, as opposed to his billed name Friendly Orderly, only why it can’t be changed due to spoilers. Legomonkeyman997 (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:LEAD summarises the content of the article, and the article gives the character name as Henry Creel/One/Vecna in the Career and Filmography sections (something which you seem to agree with). Following the intentionally-spoiler-free cast listings–at a time when all the names are reported in mainstream media–is objectively inaccurate. If somebody doesn't want to see a spoiler, don't read Wikipedia. – 2.O.Boxing 16:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I conceded that if you felt a need to be specific on the character’s name, despite not being the published name, the career section would make the most sense. However, since you have brought that up, it would also be correct to change that name to Friendly Orderly, again on the basis of that being the published character name. You can not like my reasoning, but there is still no reasoning stated as to why the character name should reflect who the character becomes only through watching the story, rather than it being the published name. Again, if they publish the character name as Henry Creel/Vecna/One in season 5, that is the official name, and it would accurately reflect that to state it as such in both the main and career summary page for Jamie Campbell Bower. Until that is the case however, the name should simple be Friendly Orderly. Legomonkeyman997 (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it would be better, the published name for his character is Peter Ballard, though it is not used in the show. But I am not finding anything other than commentary that names him Henry Creel/Vecna/One, or at least nothing official. Legomonkeyman997 (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason his character is listed as Henry Creel/One/Vecna is because a) they're the names used in the series (meaning they're inarguably official) and b) it's more concise. A Google search of Jamie Campbell Bower Stranger Things character brings up countless articles from WP:Reliable sources that give all three names. So not only are the names official, they're also backed by countless reliable sources. There's also Stranger Things (season 4)#Cast and characters, which lists the character in the same way, as well as List of Stranger Things characters, which lists him as Vecna and goes on to give his other names.

I believe omitting the names that the character is most commonly known by in favour of the intentionally-spoiler-free end credits (Friendly Orderly)–which as far as I can remember is never used in the series–would be a disservice to readers of an encyclopaedia...simply to avoid a spoiler. – 2.O.Boxing 02:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finding an article that is an opinion piece, or an unofficial recap article, or something along those lines, doesn’t allow for the use of “inarguable” in whatever argument it’s backing. You can find articles that are more specific. But anything that was officially published, and my definition for that is by the creators, producers, or anyone involved in actually making the show, doesn’t give that specificity for the character name. You can certainly find them talk about it eventually, but it’s disingenuous to their work to find an excuse to be as specific to the character as you’re wanting to be. At best, you can argue that the either presentation of the character name is valid, in this case however the only reason for Henry Creel/Vecna/One being the one is used is it was there first. There’s not an argument that can explain why the name needs to be that specific, when the published name is perfectly acceptable and does a much better service to the reader. It’s incredibly disappointing to find that wikipedia has become a site where editors are able to use the platform simply to win arguments, rather than actually be collaborative and present information in the most honorable way to the reader. Legomonkeyman997 (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With that closing statement, WP:AGF has gone. The only reason you want the names removed is because it's a spoiler, as you stated multiple times in your edit summaries and again below. I'm not gonna repeat myself over and over because you don't like the reasoning. It's boring. Toodlepip. – 2.O.Boxing 12:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify, to the reader of this page who is not a fan or even slightly interested in Stranger Things, it will make no difference which name is used. To a Stranger Things fan, it does make a difference, which is why it is most helpful and honoring to each reader to use the name that will not cause any issues, while still being as “official” as we can possibly get at this point. Legomonkeyman997 (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware, in the beginning, that spoilers were not taken into account when sharing information, and it is plainly clear since then that I have not used them as the basis for my argument, and at best the lack of spoilers are a by product of a valid name provided by the creators of the content we’re talking about. There has not been a basis for “Good Faith” argument from you on this entire interaction, as you have looked at everything I have brought forth as only due to not wanting spoilers, despite me pivoting to appropriately fit into the editing guidelines. There’s been a bit of an attempt to develop an argument for keeping the page as is, but only as an afterthought because I wasn’t accepting a non-response as a valid reason to keep a piece of information in the article that at the very least should be considered questionable. You also have yet to explain how stating the information as you would like is actually helpful to the reader, or at least more helpful than going to the published name. Legomonkeyman997 (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The semi protection for this page does not need to be there anymore[edit]

It's from something that happened such a long time ago 78.150.88.99 (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

is it even meant to be there or not still78.150.88.99 (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not semi-protected. Anonymous and new users are still able to edit. The difference is that edits from them are “pending”, but the edits are recorded in the page history. Tropicalkitty (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.88.99 (talk) [reply]
Yes but why does it still need to be there, it was added in 2014 78.150.91.150 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a review into why edits to this page are pending[edit]

Especially considering the Administrator who added it has officially quit Wikipedia, there is no more vandalism to this page and this was added back in 2013, and this is anecdotal but from what I can see having edits be pending is very rare and this is the only page I have seen like this. If there is a good reason then that's okay but I haven't had any response to why this still is from anyone yet. 78.150.91.150 (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been semi-protected many times but only briefly, but I still think there should be a review into why this page still has pending edits 78.150.91.150 (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go and ask at WP:AN to see if there is wider support for your suggestion to remove pending changes. Nthep (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit rare but not extremely so. 3788 pages currently include the pending changes template. That's the lower bound, some pages have pending changes without the template - including this article. MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

infobox[edit]

Hi, I'm a fan of Jamie (as you can see from my many edits on this page!) and and I would like to add to the infobox of his information (birth, partners etc) the information of his musical career, but I don't know why I added them and and the page becomes messy. Can someone help me figure out how to insert and why I can’t do it? Thanks x (P.S. with "musical career" I mean his music genres, his instruments, his labels for example) Mi chiamo Carmela (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and, basing on the same scheme, I would like to add (if it is possible) the informations of modelling career (eye colour, height, hair colour), and also (if it is possible) change the photo in the infobox. But I can't find a good photo. Can someone help me? Thanks Mi chiamo Carmela (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

The photo in the infobox is correct and beautiful, but is there someone with a recent photo of Jamie, maybe a 2024's photo, maybe also during the Milan Fashion Week? Because there are many photos of him from the event, but they are from Getty... so is there someone who has some photos (not from Getty or Stock)? Thanks Mi chiamo Carmela (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jamie_Campbell_Bower&oldid=1210164519"