Talk:Tom Selleck

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

Modeling career[edit]

More needs to be mentioned about Tom Selleck's early modelling career in the 1960s-1970s. His face was as common between the covers of Playboy magazine as the naked women. He epitomized the macho man in cologne and fashion ads. --MarioSmario (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image[edit]

According to WP:LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." I checked several online biographies of Selleck and they all show recent images of the actor, who is currently enjoying considerable success in films and television. Replacing a recent image of the actor with a 33-year-old head shot is not consistent with this guidance. I've moved the Magnum P.I.-era image to the body in the appropriate section. Bede735 (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree. This is an article about a famous actor, and as the article makes clear in a large paragraph, his role in Magnum P.I. was important to his career. There are already three unhelpful candid images of him at various events. Nor was he notable for being interviewed, but as an actor, and an important role image is obviously what "readers will expect to see," as opposed to candids taken at public events. Your implication that a recent candid is somehow more important to an actor's biography is unsupported. Even his book biography, Tom Selleck: An Unauthorized Biography, has a similar image from Magnum P.I.. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His role in PI was indeed important, and if he was a one-hit-wonder, you would be correct that it should be the main image. But he has gone on to have a very successful film career (and film is typically considered more prestigious than television, and in any case, he is starring in an additional show right now. magnum PI was 33 years ago. The book you are referencing was from 1983 so yes, indeed it does include a picture from 30+ years ago as well!Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you obviously agree that an event candid is less meaningful than an acting-relevant photo, which naturally would be what "readers will expect to see." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TCA Awards are "acting relevant" by any standard. Many stars have their wiki-photos from awards shows. But more importantly, I think they will expect to see a photo not taken over half a lifetime ago for a still working and highly successful actor. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That recent awards event is not even mentioned in the article and a snapshot candid from it is out of place both in the article and especially as a lead photo. Those kinds of recent press or candid photos work best in tabloids and newspaper stories, not biographies.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that a publicity shot or something would be better, but a MODERN one. Such photos have copyright encumberance. If not for a loophole in copyright law, your prefered image would be similarly encumbered, therefore candid shots are the rule rather than the exception in wikipedia. Here are a few other biography sites, only one of which shows an 80s era picture

  • IMDB - recent shot
  • Biography.com - recent shot
  • Parade - recent shot
  • tv guide - recent shot
  • tv.com - recent shot
  • starpulse.com - recent shot
  • biography channel uk - old shot, but not magnum PI

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a few of our lead images for other stars, all candid. several of which are 70s/70s stars, which would have the same copyright free images available, but are not using them


100px File:Scott Baio1.jpg Gaijin42 (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course newsy fan publications, fan sites or magazines about current entertainment would have recent photos. But your basis comments, about "loopholes," "MODERN" and that "candid shots are the rule," make no sense. All 3 statements are totally wrong. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, ignore biography and imdb. What biography sites are you using to determine "what readers expect from a biography" other than your own opinion?

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


In any case, it is clear there is not consensus for your change. Wikipedia:STATUSQUO. Open up an RFC, or take it to DR or something. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC[edit]

Per discussion above, is a recent candid photo of Selleck during an interview better for his bio than a career acting photo? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • clarify RFC Is a recent candid photo of still highly active Selleck during an interview, better for his bio than a 30+ year old publicity photo.
  • Career acting image, as recognizable, relevant to body text, and a better professional photo. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recent photo, for the reasons presented by Gaijin42. This is a biography of a living person who is still active and notable for his current work in films and television, as the article makes clear. The 33-year-old publicity photo belongs in the section of the article related to that period in the subject's career. Bede735 (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • recent photo - we are lucky to have one so new.Moxy (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • recent photo - no reason to put old publicity shot into infobox when it can be used elsewhere in the article, and we can then put the new photo into the infobox. More photos: better. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • recent photo - a 30-year old picture would only be appropriate if that was the sole time in his life that he achieved notability. He remains notable and a recent photo is more relevant and informative to the readers in an encyclopedia. The Magnum photo can/should be used in the section of the article that highlights that role. Vertium When all is said and done 12:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close[edit]

Motion to close the RFC as "recent photo", as the sole !vote for the Magnum PI image is wikiwatcher, and this RFC has been open 10+ days? Gaijin42 (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.
--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering why it was not brought up about Tom being on The Young and the Restless at all.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Monique Hurn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.118.20.101 (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of people magazine sexiest man awards? I think that he may have the record for that...

Dispute with Calleguas Municipal Water District[edit]

Should the article cover Selleck's dispute with Calleguas Municipal Water District? One source for such information is http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-water-district-settlement-selleck-20150715-story.html.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - he stole water so put it in there and stop white-washing stuff

I just added it. It appears to have been added multiple times in the past and removed. Please discuss here before removing it as it has numerous strong references. Mjeromee (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selleck is very tall.[edit]

When I searched Tom Selleck's height on Google, it says that he is 192 cm which means he was 6'4, When I checked at celebheights.com, it mentions that Selleck was 193 cm and that currently he is not tall, I believe that Selleck's height was 185 cm when I tried counting his meter, He was very tall but Wikipedia might edit and list his height. MangoStone14Let's interview 8:29, October 9, 2015 (UTC)

His army rank[edit]

I note that the info-box shows his Army National Guard rank as a Sergeant. However, the bio at IMDB makes this statement: "While a member of the California National Guard, Selleck attended the California Military Academy and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant." Wondering if anyone knows how to determine which account is correct? EditorASC (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone needs to do research and lump him in with other draft dodgers who didn't want to go to war and enlisted in the safe National Guard??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:620:5617:A0B2:51F8:2D6F:2B15 (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tom Selleck. 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.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Shores[edit]

I believe Tom Sellek has a home on ONO Island in Alabama. Maybe you can edit his page . Thanks Rose — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosemls (talk • contribs) 18:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Children[edit]

The info box does not mention children, but the article says he has 2, one adopted and one with his second wife. Needs to be added to info box. Halcyon grun Sproutz (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lovelife[edit]

is Tom gay? 2600:1003:B1D6:62C6:30E1:82F1:D32D:FDCC (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. He's currently (2021) married to a woman. Mjeromee (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal[edit]

I propose that sections Filmography be split into a separate page called Tom Selleck on screen and stage. This section is large enough to make its own page. Thank you.Filmman3000 (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

College baseball...[edit]

The link supporting the claim he was a pitcher at USC is behind a paywall and I can't find any actual evidence he played baseball at USC. He doesn't appear on any USC baseball rosters or on any baseball sites. I found evidence he played basketball there from 1965-1967 but nothing for baseball.

His older brother played baseball, and was even a pitcher, at USC in 1962-1964 so maybe that's the confusion?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_USC_Trojans_baseball_team 24.89.85.82 (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Selleck&oldid=1212141212"