Jump to content

Talk:Indiana Jones (character)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rodhullandemu (talk | contribs) at 23:17, 12 October 2008 (→‎Name in the lead: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeIndiana Jones (character) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 27, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 13, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

New WikiProject Open!

I have finally created a WikiProject for Indiana Jones! Check it out. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter

I think that somewhere I heard that Indy had a daughter, is this true? Emperor001 (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name in the lead

I find it infuriating that even this long after the start of the character, people are still changing the WP:LEAD to add irrelevant detail and changing the format. There is no reason why it should not be perfectly stable by now. Accordingly, I've changed it to a version that is supported by major sources. If anyone thinks the name of the character should be more completely specified, please say so here, and we can discuss consensus. --Rodhullandemu 22:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difficult thing is that people want to add Colonel, which I can sympathise with as Indiana served in both World Wars, on and off the field. How does it go, Col Dr., Col. (Dr.)? Colonel-Doctor? Alientraveller (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I remain open to argument, I don't see it as a major or necessary addition, certainly not in the lead. It doesn't define him, it's a piece of back-history which was added later in his fictional historiography. It is arguably dealt with appropriately in the articles in which it's a relevant feature, IMO. Overall, although I'm only familiar with the movies, it's not a great issue to me; the whole point I detect in the character is that he is (a) an adventurer and supporter of "good values" (b) while otherwise being an otherwise pedestrian college lecturer (much like myself). His Army service, unless some point is made of it, for example in Indiana Jones and the 1917-18 war or Indiana Jones and the 1941-45 war, is detail. --Rodhullandemu 23:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the films he is referred to as "Dr. Jones" from time to time. How often has anyone called him "Col. Jones"? Not often, that I can think of. Or maybe never. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, he holds various titles and aliases in The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, so "Dr." is the only encaspulating description as that was his title for most of his life. He's generally retired from the military until they pull him back in. Alientraveller (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. As to the question of "Col.-Dr." vs. "Dr.-Col." I would say that he has a permanent title of "Dr." whereas his title of "Col." only really matters while he is serving in the military - which he isn't in the films, as I recall. As a comparison, I recall Ed McMahon talking once about having been an Air Force Colonel in WWII. How often did Johnny Carson ever call him "Colonel"? Not often, if ever. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest we go with common usage. WP:UNDUE, although not directly in point, suggests we should not over-emphasise minority points of view. Accordingly, since not much is made of Jones' military rank throughout the franchise, it should not be unduly emphasised here, and I reiterate my suggestion that it can be mentioned, FWIW, in articles dealing with its relevance, but is overall of minor importance. --Rodhullandemu 23:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]