Talk:Robin Williams

Williams' children

Can somenone tell me why are the names of the children are being removed and what is being achieved by removing their names. What do the name of the children have to do with Robin's death? Robin Williams was not a victim of a horrible crime. So there's no policy that justifies removing the names of the children. Including the names of children will not have any "bad effect" on them or victimise them in any way. Oh and by the way I especially wonder why the names have only been removed from the infobox. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You'll want to search this talk page archive but basically, there's not enough room to include them all and there's a clear TOC entry that a reader wanting to read it can find more. It doesn't help they come from difference marriages, as it makes it complexicated to give even a simply entry. So it was decided to leave it as "3" and have people refer to the body to learn more. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There has not been a consensus on the matter, nor a reason to remove the daughter (who is notable) from the infobox. Jim Michael (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Completely right. There has been no consensus. There is no need to remove the name of any child until there is a consensus. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox person, it says "Number of children (e.g. three or 3), or list of names if notable. For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable.", which is daughter Zelda Williams is independently notable as she has her own wikipedia article and can go in his infobox. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Since his death it has bounced all over the place and no consensus has been reached even though on one occasion all three children were added and that was corrected by Lady Lotus on 15:43, 12 August 2014 and no one seemed to have a problem with it at the time. Only in the last few days has there been an issue with notable children and that was taken off even though discussions were still ongoing. I had referred to Williams’ ex-wife’s page as an example as the same child was listed in her infobox and now she has both children listed. Obviously it is an editorial dispute causing the issue not common sense.--[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Well since Zelda is noticeable I will insert her name. Although I don't know how it should be inserted. Should I write it as 3 incl. Zelda Rae Williams or should I use some other format? KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Better to leave it as 3. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in inserting Zelda's name. I am going to add it since it's not against any policy. Also Winkelvi, I don't want to beat a dead horse but before giving advice to me you should learn not to remove other's comment just because someone speaks against you like you did at your talk page. Such edits are not constructive. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has happened before - if you add Zelda, then the other names should be added. If you add any child's name, then you should be added which marriage it was from. This all bloats the infobox. Yes, there is nothing MOS related that prevents the addition of Zelda's name, but it is editorially better to leave it out and let the prose discuss the details of his children. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I have changed it back to "3". As it should be. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop enforcing your opinion. Was there any consensus? No there wasn't. It doesn't matter whether there was a discussion or not. What matters if there was a consensus or not. Winklevi, your admin rights should be revoked. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

admin rights?????? WWGB (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

There was consensus. Additionally, while adding it back once is bold, adding it back in twice when discussion is going on is edit warring. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The please show me where the consensus is. Your actually lying Masem because I've searched the archives and found out a consensus never happened. It was only you and Winklevi who kept saying that the names of the children should not be added. But still i think we can have a consensus now. And I think that a wide community consensus is better suited for this thing. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

[1], because as soon as people tried to add the one notable one (Zelda), others tried to add the other two (Whose identities are public knowledge), and thus made edit wars of this page. Leaving them all out is the better solution to prevent more being added. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There are many articles who have edit wars. I'm no stranger to edit wars as I've myself seen many articles where Disruptive editors keep adding an information back even though the reason it's been removed was valid. They keep doing it no matter how many times you explain to them,. But not entering the name of Zelda Williams just because of the risk of an edit war is stupid. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That isn't why it's being removed. The reasons why have been outlined for you here. Consensus is to keep it out and the reasons why that consensus was reached are sound. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There was never any consensus. I have searched the archives high and low and there was never any consensus about Williams' children. We should hold a RfC on this matter. That will be a good solution. 04:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)KahnJohn27 (talk)

death in lead

is it necessary to put his death info in the lead? i don't often see that in other articles. 69.73.10.197 (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes it is, it depends on the circumstances. - Aoidh (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

His death was notable, widely reported. So, yes. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 07:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The last line in the death said "His body was cremated and his ashes scattered in San Francisco Bay on August 12.[131]" That looks wrong for the time frame that he dead on the 11th and the "initial report released on August 12, the Marin County Sheriff's Office" and was cremated in the same day and scattered? (cremation takes 12 plus hours). My be it should say "His body was cremated and his ashes scattered in San Francisco Bay." The [131] note has no date of August 12 but was posted by CNN on August 22. (had to post before I forgot) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashou812 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed --Light show (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Death certificate makes clear that ashes were scattered on 12 August [2]. WWGB (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

line [39] "The Disposition date 8/12/14" (release of his body to crematorium.) [40]"Scattering in San Francisco Bay off the cost of Marin County, Ca". The corner must put a date on line [39] at the time of the certificate and the date is only a release of the body to its resting place or to the crematorium (to be cooked for 12 hours). There also should be a permit with this in CA as that is a general law. The permit will also show the date/time crematorium happen. Again... "Disposition" is only a release. This was why I said in the first text that I would have just left off "on August 12". Most know he dead on the 11th and the corner didn't even see him until sometime on the 12th. His body was taken to the crematorium some time after the 12th when it was released from the corner. Rashou812 (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I struggle with your assertion. If "disposition" only means release, then why is place of disposition cited as San Francisco Bay? I am satisfied the article reports the true sequence of events. The disposition occurred ON 12 August AT San Francisco Bay. WWGB (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You should spend a second and look up the word. Disposition Line 1 C1 (transfer to the care or possession of another (2) : the power of such transferal). I didnt make the word, or place it on such document, Im just saying there is more then one meaning to that word on that document. Rashou812 (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Rfc: Should the name of Zelda Rae Williams be included in the infobox?

Per Template:Infobox person the name of a child should be only entered in the infobox if they are notable. Although I added the name to infobox in the children section along with the number of children as 3 (incl. Zelda Rae Williams), MASEM and Winkelvi removed her name. Masem says that people will start adding the names of other children however I find this argument is completely irrational and also it is not a good reason to not include the name in the infobox. Winklevi says that a consensus was reached which was to keep the name out. However after searching through the archives I didn't find any consensus ever being there on the issue. However we can have a consensus now on this issue. Should the name of Robin Williams' daughter Zelda Rae Williams be included in the infobox of the article? KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes: I don't see any violation of any rule or policy in including the name. Besides the argument that that people will start adding the names of other children however I find this argument is completely irrational and also is not a good reason to not include the name. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• Yes it is imperative because this is the first place people will search to see if he had any notable offspring.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• Yes: She is notable in her own right and her name is in the public domain so there are no privacy concerns. That is what the infobox is for. HelenOnline 14:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• No. She is notable, but this discussion has already taken place just a couple of weeks ago. Consensus was already reached and was based on the following: adding one name of a notable child would be confusing; adding all the children's names would clutter up the info box unnecessarily. If people want to know the names of Williams' children, they can read the article. After all, that is what we want people to do: read Wikipedia articles, not just glance at info boxes. Further, KahnJohn is engaging in pointy-ness from what would seem to be a personal agenda by initiating this RFC. He didn't like the consensus that was reached a short while ago, and is now seeking comments in order to disrupt the consensus. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: That is completely false accusation that you have leveled on me User: Winkelvi. I don't have any personal agenda or wish to disrupt some consensus (which actually was never there). I only started this Rfc in order to ascertain whether the Wikipedia editors support including Zelda's name in the infobox or not. If majority of the people here vote against including her name I have no problem with that. This Rfc was started by me only to take the opinion of as many people as possible. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comments found here [3] show your claim of not having a problem with the consensus reached and agreed upon again in further discussion to be false. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually you're wrong there again. When I said there never was no consensus I meant to say that unlike what you (Winkelvi) claim, a consensus was never reached. I really wonder why you're making out such false meanings of my comment when the meaning of it can be understood clearly. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

In other words, no child should be mentioned by name unless all children are notable! Do you truly not see that this is illogical? The infobox reflects current consensus; it denotes importance of information on offspring. The relevant rules direct us to respect the privacy of non-notable children, while on the other hand Wikipedia is all about notability. How can you possibly support a position whereby a person's notability is nullified on account of his or her siblings' non-notability? -The Gnome (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes Wikipedia's relevant rule does not preclude mentioning by name one notable child and leaving the others nameless. As far as children who are not notable individuals themselves are concerned, the rule explicitly directs us to "consider omitting the[ir] names" "for privacy reasons." But having one notable individual plus other, non-notable ones does not rob the notable individual of his or her notability! We should, therefore, mention Zelda Williams by name and leave the others nameless. E.g. "three including Zelda Williams." -The Gnome (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• No Either you do all three (which there's not enough room for) or you do none; it gives undo weight for just one to be listed, and invites editors to come along to add the other two for completeness. This has been determined before via talk page archives while this page was locked down over edit warring over this specific facet. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

On what basis is there not enough room for 3? I really want to know (and I don't think it matters that they don't all have the same mother, we do not have to cover that detail in the infobox). HelenOnline 15:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• No: The names of his children are mostly trivia, and they're just as easy to discover in the TOC under "Children." There's no limit to all the minutia the infobox could include, and the infobox looks large as it is. Adding one child without the rest would look odd to most visitors, regardless of it having a link, since readers see links as a convenience. So it's obvious there will be others who either question why only one child is listed or else just add the others. Cogito ergo sum, updated to, I'm linked, therefore I am, [worthy of being in an infobox], is silly, IMO. --Light show (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes: His children's names are most certainly NOT trivial. In fact, I'd say all three should be included. There's no point in naming one but not the others, regardless of notability. I really don't think an RfC on something minor like this is needed, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

His children's names should be (and are) in the body of the article. They are not necessary in the info box. Having them in the info box is trivial and unimportant. As is this RFC. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I request you to please stop showing disruptive behavior and ridiculing the Rfc. You accused me of not caring about the consensus which never actually existed but it is you who has starting to ridiculing the consensus. I request you to contribute your valuable opinion instead of getting involved in conflict with others and indulging in disruptive behavior. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsha_Garces_Williams - --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. Why don't we use a new field that reads "notable children", that way it's clear we're not necessarily listing all the offspring? I don't know if {{infobox person}} allows for custom fields, but if not, we can add support. — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a sensible compromise. The problem you might have with adding the criteria, however, is whether or not the addition falls within the MOS guidelines for info boxes and if adding the section and name adds to the reader's understanding of the article subject. I maintain it does not, but your suggestion is certainly thoughtful and more in line with working through a conflict than any of the others giving 'yes' support so far. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 14:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal, i.e. having a line for number of children and another one for notable children, which is to be left unused in case of non-notable ones. -The Gnome (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:MusikAnimal I agree with your idea too. Actually I already had this idea about a different section for notable children but I was hesitant to speak about it. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes: Include all children's names. If you want to work on banning the names of all non-notable children, lobby for it, but do not remove them ad hoc. If you find the infobox cluttered, don't look at it, and please do not be paternalistic and demand that readers search for it in the body of the article. Remember Siri and Google Knowledge Graph only look at the lede and the infobox, this is a disservice to machine learning to not include the information. And please, stop calling information you are not interested in "trivia". Just because it does not interest you, is no reason to belittle what interests other people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

How ironic that you are being paternalistic and demanding while chastising others for being paternalistic and demanding. Please limit your comments in this survey to edits and your opinion of edits, not editors (that goes for edit summaries, as well). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote, no person is named or maligned, my discussion is cogent and on-topic. By the way your comeback to my argument consists of: "I know you are but what am I". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You advocate publicizing "all children's names" yet that would be against Wikipedia guidelines, which state: "For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable". Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That consideration also applies to the article as a whole per WP:BLPNAME. Their names are already in the article. The key factor is whether their names are properly sourced. HelenOnline 05:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"Consider omitting" does NOT mean we are required to omit. It just says to give the idea thought. However, the idea of privacy is really moot when their names are well-known to the public. His sons' names are also definitely not a private matter when he often talked about his children. As long as it's reliably sourced, policy states that it is perfectly valid to include. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, policy leans toward omission if the children are not notable. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 07:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy not only "leans" by explicitly directs us to omit, "for privacy reasons," the names of non-notable children! However, this does not mean that notable children should not be mentioned by name. In fact, the very existence of the relevant guideline clearly makes a distinction between notable and non-notable children. I already put it up: Wikipedia is shaped by considerations of notability - and we're obliged to proceed accordingly. Get used to it, people!.. The obvious solution for the Williams article is to mention the name of the one notable child and simply cite the number of the other, non-notable offspring. It'd be against Wikipedia's foundational criteria to omit a notable person's name on account of his siblings being non-notable. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Helen is correct: The criteria and the directive to preserve the anonymity of non-notable children in BLPs covers all the text in an article, and not just the infobox. Everything I wrote here in this discussion also refers to the main body of the article. -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes for including. I don't see anything wrong with listing the names of children of actors...especially when they are also actors. That's hardly not of note. --Shabidoo | Talk 20:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Yes - all names that are notable for the article should be in the infobox. The purpose of the infobox is to give a quick snapshot of the article. If adding the child's name to the article doesn't violate WP:BLP, then neither should an addition to the infobox. In this particular case, one of the children even has her own Wikipedia article, so opposition to inclusion is beyond me. How hot is the sun? (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• The only possible way it could violate BLP is if it was poorly sourced, so yes they should be included. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Include - Seems like a logical bit of info to have in the infobox. I don't see why we couldn't have something along the lines of "3, including Zelda Williams" under the children section (formatted in a better way, obviously).--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary: This is not a !count of the !vote. It is a summary of the three options that have been proposed. Inclusion of ALL children by name: 7 - Exclusion of ALL names of children: 3 - Inclusion of notable child ONLY by name and the total number of children: 4 (Please update) Note some people wrote Yes without specifying one of the three choices. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes - Nothing wrong with listing the notable ones, "3; including Zelda Williams" is imho just fine .–Davey2010 • (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussions

Off-topic back and forth commentary

Consensus on this was already reached. KahnJohn has been fighting that consensus for weeks. He edit warred over it. His most compelling reason for including her name is based on his personal interest in gaming, as Zelda was allegedly named after a video game character. This RFC, in my opinion, is one editor trying to game the system and is based on an intent to disrupt, overturn consensus by editors very involved in the development of this article, WP:IDHT, and a need to win. I'm all for editors going to RFC for dispute resolution, but in this case, I find it very inappropriate and dishonest. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find this consensus either, and even if such a consensus was reached it can change. This RFC is the best way to resolve the dispute. I don't care what KahnJohn's reasons are. What are your reasons for wanting it the way you want it? What are anybody's? We don't have to say and we don't have to know. There is nothing sinister about adding children's names to an infobox when they are already in the public domain. HelenOnline 17:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

My reasons are already stated. Considering that, I can only sense aggressiveness in your tone in asking what my reasons are. And no one suggested "sinister" rationale. I continue to stand by all the reasons stated when we reached consensus on this weeks ago as well as those expressed now by the same people who agreed that her name is not needed in the info box. Having her name there just because we can is flawed rationale and defies logic. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You too were being aggressive when you called my comment on your talk page "trash". Rather than telling others to keep their behaviors in check you personally need to learn it first. I don't want to start any blame game here Winkelvi but honestly you're breaching all the limits of decency. I have been patient with you because of you having Asperger even though you have ridiculed me for long. And yes we can include the name of Zelda Williams when there is nothing wrong in including it. From your behavior it is starting to seem that it is actually you who doesn't want the name to be included because of a personal agenda. I can't stop you from expressing your opinion but if you show disruptive behavior again I'm sorry to say but I'll have to report you at ANI. I've already said whatever is the outcome of the Rfc we'll abide by it. So I don't understand what problem you really have with it. A consensus should have both the involved and uninvolved editors and that's the only reason for me initiating this Rfc. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

KahnJohn's rationale is also already stated. You implied his reasons were something other than his stated rationale. Why should we believe Winkelvi and second guess anyone else? That was my point, we can only go by what people state and that is what consensus should be based on. As there is nothing sinister about it, why are you reaching for an ulterior motive? And I agree Winkelvi's "take out the trash" edit summary to a good faith request by KahnJohn was uncivil. HelenOnline 05:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Also in response to Wikelvi's claims of a consensus being reached these are the only places where including Williams' childens' name or not has been discussed:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robin_Williams/Archive_3#Full_protection
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robin_Williams/Archive_4#Children
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robin_Williams/Archive_2#WILLIAMS_CHILDREN

And as you all might notice after reading them carefully no consensus has ever been reached in them which falsifies Winklevi's claims. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please DO report me at ANI. That would be very interesting and amusing, indeed. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you think since you're an administrator you'll get away scot-free? KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrator????? WWGB (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:WWGB Read WP:ADMIN if you want to know about administrators. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Duh, yes I know what an administrator is. I also know that User:Winkelvi is NOT an administrator. WWGB (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like I wrongly assumed that from his credentials on his user page. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi has now taken to edit warring about this on Marsha Garces Williams, where space is clearly not an issue. HelenOnline 11:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Not the case at all. One revert is not edit warring. I gave my reasons for removing the names from that infobox at the article's talk page ([4]). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 14:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

One revert of another's revert of your edit (BRR) is edit warring. If that isn't edit warring, then anyone can do whatever they like and nobody else has any say about it whatsoever. HelenOnline 14:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion limited to one talk page. As I said at the Garces Williams talk page, if you are so convinced I'm edit warring, then report me at 3RR. Otherwise, cut the crap and the accusations. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 14:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

As you please. HelenOnline 15:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have almost given up trying to contribute to Wikipedia because of your bullying User:Winkelvi, you along with a handful of others have high-jacked this page since Robin Williams passing and have prevented anyone from providing any meaningful contributions you did not like, except from editors with higher administrative powers. You made threats to other editors, when they attempted to bring forth a point of view and refused to listen to common sense. Now you have the audacity to go and change Marsha Garces's page when I point out it's difference to Robin Williams' while a consensus survey is ongoing, not to mention this was a point I brought up in the issue before when you and your editors clique blocked the idea. I sincerely hope User:HelenOnline follows through with her official complaint on your behaviour, because this is not "YOUR" encyclopedia.--[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You are also welcome to take your whining and accusations to an administrator's talk page. If you don't, it would be better for the community if you stop firing of baselss accusations. In other words, back up your threats or shut up about it. Continuing with your "Winkelvi picks on me" campaign is beyond old. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL ! Did you just tell a new user to "Shut Up!" ... priceless. I made no baseless accusations, the archived discussions in the talk pages and your recent edits are proof of what I said. If you wish this to become an official complaint against you continue with your behavior and it will be so. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This has gone a little too far, I'm nipping it in the bud right now. Comment on content, not editors. This talk page is about the Robin Williams article, let's stay on that subject. Play your drama games somewhere else. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Amendment proposal

Since the editor who started this RFC (KahnJohn27) has indicated he would be open to a compromise suggested by MusikAnimal and at least one other editor feels that same compromise is a workable solution, I propose we amend the premise of this RFC (according to MusikAnimal's suggestion) as follows: Insert a new field in the infobox that reads "notable children" in order to make it clear we're not necessarily listing all of Williams' offspring. This satisfies those believing Zelda should be listed in the infobox because of her notoriety and will hopefully keep others from being tempted to add the other two Williams children. The infobox field reading "Children" will remain a numerical value. Consensus would then be sought based on the compromise. Thoughts? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any of the infobox templates have a "notable children" parameter. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You would have to make such a proposal to change the template at the relevant template not here. HelenOnline 05:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I did say i agreed to the comment it does not mean that is necessary that we should create a new section for notable children. If in case such a section can't be created or isn't created I think it's better to include Zelda's name in the children section simply as 3 (incl. Zelda Williams). If a section for notable children can be included then we should put her name there. However I doubt there is any infobox parameter for creating notable children section. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No Creating a new infobox parameter to satisfy one person complaining about one celebrity is silly. Changing the name of the existing infobox parameter would damage all other existing biographies where no one cares that children are named. We should not change global parameters for a hyperlocal situation. We also have no authority to change templates. Since templates are on every biography you need a supermajority consensus to change them, and that discussion takes place at the template talk page, not here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

My recommendation was to utilize custom fields made available by the template. {{Infobox settlement}} is an example, where there are numerous "blank" optional fields with flexibility on placement. I don't see this in {{infobox person}}, but it shouldn't be terribly difficult to implement. This would not only address our issue but open the door for special use cases in other biographical articles. I do however agree that we'd need some clear consensus at Template talk:Infobox person (and rigorous testing) to add this type of functionality, as there is the risk that it could be misused. — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) Do you really think I started this Rfc to "satisfy" myself? Basically there are 8 others who agree for including Zelda's name. And I never agreed to creating a new parameter for notable children. I just agreed to a different section for notable children. So I don't see what are you blaming me for. I think you must apologise. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Richard was referring to you, KahnJohn. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

KahnJohn27: Could you please stop with the talk page drama? Richard wasn't referring to you. And while you're at it, please stop with trying to make this RfC about you. RfCs are to be about the betterment of articles, not the people who start them. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Technically it should be possible to use the relatives parameter to list the notable child, i.e. | relatives = Zelda Williams (daughter). Does anyone object to that? HelenOnline 16:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Object even if Cody and Zak don't meet WP:BIO, doing such a thing might suggest to readers that she was his only child. It doesn't seem fair to them or make much sense. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you that they should all be listed if their names are reliably sourced, just playing the devil's advocate here. FWIW, | children = 3 would be immediately above the name. HelenOnline 17:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"Doing such a thing might suggest...she was his only child". Yes, hello? Exactly why the new field should read "Notable children". Exactly why putting in just one child's name in the "Children" field wouldn't work. Exactly why there was an earlier consensus to leave all of their names out of the infobox to begin with. And just for shits and giggles, let's look at another actor/comedian and how his article's infobox reads in regard to his notable children: [5]; then, look at the article section: [6]. His notable, actress daughter isn't in the infobox, but is noted in the article section Personal life. Where is the precedent for naming ONLY notable children in the "Children" infobox field for similar articles? Further, realize that no one cared about listing Williams' notable daughter before his death, even though the article has existed for years. Why is it suddenly so important Zelda's name be included? Especially since no precedent article/infobox has been noted. I still say Zelda's name stays out of the infobox along with the other children, and being mentioned in the article is enough. If we can't agree on that, then "Notable children" (in addition to Children: 3 in the infobox) will have to be the compromise. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to have unanimous agreement only consensus, and we can't add a new parameter to the template from here. HelenOnline 06:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Cut wrists

A lot of speculations have been battled over on this talkpage during the past few weeks, but why don't we mention the simple fact that according to the official report, he had not only hung himself, but had also cut his wrists? I find this rather notable and significant, as no matter whether it was premeditated or a spontaneous impulse, he was obviously trying to make it a "dead sure" thing by applying several methods at once. --91.11.2.98 (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That was previously deemed excess detail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It was also my impression that we are waiting for the official and complete coroner's report to be released. At which time, more detail can be added (as appropriate and if it is encyclopedic in nature). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and as best as I can recall, they said there were scratches on his wrists, but that doesn't mean he was necessarily trying to cut them. As Winkelvi says, we will wait for the coroner report to determine if this is a necessary detail. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of 'Popeye' and the addition of two other films in opening paragraph

The opening paragraph claims Popeye to be one of Williams' acclaimed works -- it is not. Nor is it one of his financial successes. Therefore, Popeye cannot be included in this part of the article as currently written. Maybe we could add "Following his film debut in Popeye" to the beginning of the paragraph; otherwise, the sentence as currently written is factually incorrect.

Also, I've twice added two movies to the list for Robin's acclaimed works, One Hour Photo and World's Greatest Dad, and I've twice been reverted by Winkelvi because he or she thinks the list is too long. The problem, however, is that the "acclaimed works" list only contains some his early works and nothing from his later career (1998-2014); kinda makes it seem like he had no films worth mentioning during that period, but One Hour Photo and World's Greatest Dad are among the most acclaimed films of his career. I think if you're going to include a brief list or description of Robin's most acclaimed films, then it should represent the entirety of his career, not just half of it. Otherwise, why have it there at all? --ThylekShran (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree about Popeye, but note that there are two films from 2006 mentioned. We should just keep those or else replace them with a few recent ones that are more acclaimed. --Light show (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that there is a breakout article, the list is ridiculously long. It should include around 10 of Williams' most notable roles, perhaps the award winners. It is beyond me why embarrassing films like RV are listed. WWGB (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Which ones would be best to use? Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Light show: Those two 2006 films are listed among his critical successes (the second part of the paragraph); I'm talking about the list of his acclaimed works before that. WWGB: I think you're thinking of the list at the bottom (and I agree that it's too long), but I'm talking about the list of films at the beginning of the article, in the second paragraph:

His film career included acclaimed work such as Popeye (1980), The World According to Garp (1982), Good Morning, Vietnam (1987), Dead Poets Society (1989), Awakenings (1990), The Fisher King (1991), and Good Will Hunting (1997), as well as financial successes such as Hook (1991), Aladdin (1992), Mrs. Doubtfire (1993), Jumanji (1995), The Birdcage (1996), Night at the Museum (2006), and Happy Feet (2006).

Of course, Aladdin was a critical success too so it should really be in the first part. Maybe Aladdin can replace Popeye there, but I still think One Hour Photo and World's Greatest Dad should also be added so as to properly represent the great films he made throughout the entire length of his career. [Addendum: If you were to have a list of only ten films, I recommend that it consist of World According to Garp, Good Morning, Vietnam, Dead Poets Society, Awakenings, The Fisher King, Aladdin, Mrs. Doubtfire, Good Will Hunting, One Hour Photo and Night at the Museum.] --ThylekShran (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As WWGB already stated, the list is ridiculously long. The lede/opening paragraph is supposed to be a synopsis of the article subject, not an extensive summary. We shouldn't be adding more movies to the lede's list, we should be removing more of them. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Which ones would you cut, Winkelvi? Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

When I look at List of awards and nominations received by Robin Williams I see the following award winners: Good Will Hunting, Good Morning Vietnam, The Fisher King, Mrs Doubtfire, Aladdin, One Hour Photo, The Birdcage, Awakenings. Anything else is just personal pov and has no place on this list of recognised notable performances. WWGB (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

In answer to your question, SNUGGUMS, I agree with WWGB. Everything not on the list he provided above should be removed. I also strongly believe there are some editors who are working off of POV in regard to the films to be listed or omitted. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course his best known films should be included in the lead, I guess it comes down to deciding which ones those are. Makes sense to list the awarded ones. If doing so, we should also mention in the lead prominent awards he won for such roles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree the awards should be included there, however, specific detail is not necessary (in other words, listing every award with every movie is overkill). A mention of which awards would be appropriate. Specifics regarding those awards would be content in the body of the article, not the lede. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm okay with limiting the list to just his most acclaimed, award-winning works as listed by WWGB above, though I recommend adding Dead Poets Society to the list since he got an Oscar nomination for that and it's without a doubt one of his most iconic films. Leaving it off would just seem strange. --ThylekShran (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I wouldn't go into intricate detail on them, either. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we can say something like: "He gave award-winning performances in such films as Good Morning, Vietnam (1987), Dead Poets Society (1989), Awakenings (1990), The Fisher King (1991), Aladdin (1992), Mrs. Doubtfire (1993), The Birdcage (1996), Good Will Hunting (1997) and One Hour Photo (2002)." Or should we be more specific? The lede goes on to mention his Oscar for Good Will Hunting but no other specifics. For the record, Williams won Germany's "Jupiter Award" as Best International Actor for Dead Poets Society so that film can correctly be included among his award-winning works. Williams also won a Kids' Choice Award for Hook and a Blockbuster Entertainment Award for Flubber, but I'm not sure those awards are "prestigious" enough to merit the inclusion of those films. --ThylekShran (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Kid's Choice Awards and Blockbuster Entertainment Awards are probably not prominent enough to be mentioned in lead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I would agree. Of course, the Jupiter Awards are probably not that prominent either (except maybe in Germany), but not mentioning Dead Poets Society in the lede just isn't feasible. --ThylekShran (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• If it helps, another option to get a sense of which films would make the most sense in the intros would be to check his obituaries in prominent newspapers, which generally give a good sense of the films the general public and media deems most significant.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Filmography section

I thought there was consensus to trim the Filmography section to notable roles, and remove the dross like RV. Clearly I was wrong as my bold edit was reverted. I still believe we need criteria and consensus on which films to include, given that there is a comprehensive Filmography breakout article. I cut the list back to roles for which Williams had been awarded or nominated, clearly indisputable. Most of the other films are non-notable rubbish that Williams used to maintain an income flow. I have stated a clear criterion for inclusion. Those who think otherwise need to state their alternative criterion, so that the list may be edited accordingly. The current list is overblown and unrepresentative. WWGB (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Overblown!? Not at all. We don't just cherry-pick roles to list in such a section like that. "Non-notable rubbish" is also quite POV. The section should include films he is known to have been featured in. Given how there is an extensive number he is known to have been in, we should list things he's known for. I've heard of removing cameos, but not just films simply deemed "non-notable". With only awarded/nominated roles, the section is incomplete. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I also attempted to trim the list to include only his most acclaimed and highest-grossing films and I, too, was summarily reverted. The person who reverted me said the trimmed list felt "incomplete," but it's not *supposed* to feel complete; that's what the main article Robin Williams filmography is for. I believe the list should be limited to the following:

3

I think this list covers all the "essential" films in Williams' résumé; all the others can be found on the actual filmography page. --ThylekShran (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The thing is this: we don't cherry-pick his roles to only have essentials, even if there is a referral link. A reduced list like that is underweighted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Show. Me. The. Criteria. (Not just opinions). WWGB (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Snuggums, the list already consists of cherry-picked titles. You'll notice many of his lesser films – The Survivors, The Best of Times, Club Paradise, Seize the Day, Being Human, Nine Months, Deconstructing Harry, Death to Smoochy, The Final Cut, House of D, The Night Listener, The Big White, Man of the Year and Happy Feet Two among them – are not in the list. By my understanding, the section is supposed to contain a list of "cherry-picked" films to serve as a kind of preview for the main filmography page which is linked at the start of the section. Otherwise, why bother having a separate filmography page? --ThylekShran (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"Lesser" films isn't really a convincing reason to leave them out. Filmography pages are more than just listings of roles in film/TV- they also discuss things like reception of works and awards received. Plus, TV roles are not listed in filmography sections (never knew the reason, but it just is) when there are separate pages for filmography/videography. For example, Elvis Presley (which is FA) lists all the films seen on Elvis Presley filmography, and Michael Jackson (also FA) lists all the films seen on Michael Jackson videography. Madonna (which is GA) also lists all the films seen on Madonna filmography, so do Justin Timberlake (also GA) with Justin Timberlake videography and Seth MacFarlane (another GA) with Seth MacFarlane filmography. Such pages also often discuss details on awards, nominations, and such not discussed on main bio page. I feel we should follow examples given on FA's and GA's. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

WWGB, I chose those films based on the number of wins and nominations Williams received for each film (based on IMDb's list here), how well-received they were critically (using RottenTomatoes' list of Williams' 10 best-reviewed movies) and the amount each film grossed at the box office (a list of his films in order of box office gross can be found here). The exceptions are Popeye, which should be included as it's his feature film debut; The World According to Garp, Williams' first venture into dramatic film acting and is still one of his best-reviewed films, as you can see here; and the upcoming Night at the Museum 3, which should be there since it was his last physical film role (it wrapped just before the summer). I've updated the list above to include reasons for each film's inclusion in brackets. --ThylekShran (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Snuggums: I did not create the list to begin with; it's someone else whose been leaving out those films. That said, if listing a person's entire filmography is what's done on other articles, even featured articles, then I guess it's okay to do the same here. We'll need to add all of his omitted movies to the filmography section though. Wish I had known all this before writing up the criteria stuff above, though maybe that can be used for figuring out which movies should be mentioned in the lede (being discussed in the section above). --ThylekShran (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Comparing the filmography section of an actor with the films of a singer is not an appropriate comparison. Have a look at the Filmography sections for recently-deceased actors like Philip Seymour Hoffman, Eli Wallach and James Garner. Guess what? No rambling lists of films. That's what the breakout article is for. The Filmography section should just be a link and a lead. WWGB (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

My point was that there are FA and GA articles which give comprehensive lists, which is not "rambling". There are other FA/GA actor articles as well giving full lists, I just was giving some examples of full listings when separate page has been made. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, one of the reasons Ashton Kutcher failed a GA nomination back in October 2006 was having a limited list of his film roles in filmography section (even if there was no separate page at the time). If we want the article's section to be neutral (especially if nominating for FA or GA), I advise against making the mistake people did on Kutcher's article prior to the unsuccessful nomination, especially since the GA criteria has much higher standards than it did several years ago. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Including Zachary and Cody in the infobox

I'm glad we achieved consensus on including Zelda's name in the infobox. I was trying to read the above discussion, and I cannot quite figure out what Wikipedia policies would be violated by including Zachary and Cody's names in the infobox. They are adults, and their names are already included in the article since their names are in the public domain, so I don't quite see what WP:BLP concerns would be raised by including their names in the infobox. How hot is the sun? (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

In short, no policies or guidelines explicitly prohibit such an inclusion. Regardless of age, the only way it could possibly raise concern is if they weren't reliably sourced. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Their names seem to be properly sourced in the article. How hot is the sun? (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a fair argument that, while listing a notable child in the infobox is a good idea, considering that it is meant for at a glance vital information it might be best to note there are 3 and specifically acknowledge Zelda, which is the current state.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't see what is the "fair argument" that because the infobox "is meant for at glance vital information" that the names of non-notable children be suppressed. Do you see any issues with the way the children are listed in the infobox for Dan Quayle and Jeb Bush? How hot is the sun? (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add that all 3 of Williams' spouses are listed, with only one of them being notable enough to have her own Wikipedia article, so I don't see what "fair argument" could be made to exclude the non-notable children from the infobox. How hot is the sun? (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It's quite common for us to include the spouse names but only note the number of children in the infobox, or the spouse name but not the children at all. This case is obviously slightly different since one of the children is notable, but that doesn't necessarily mean it would be improper.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems unfair to Cody and Zak to highlight Zelda over them, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"Fairness" is neither a reason to include nor exclude the names. How hot is the sun? (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't make sense to highlight one above others, though. If all spouses are listed even if not notable, I see no reason not to do the same with Williams' sons. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

As per the documentation (yes, I know, not a policy or guideline) at Template:Infobox person, "For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable." That was written and agreed for a reason. What "reason" warrants the inclusion of Williams' non-notable children? There is no comparable position for spouses, whose inclusion is not discouraged. WWGB (talk) 06:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Williams is no longer alive, so the request to "omit names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable" does not apply. The reason to include the names of the non-notable children is that it looks awkward to only have one name, but not the others. It appears that the template is trying to hide something. 99.40.6.71 (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

99.40.6.71 is right. Also, "consider omitting" does NOT mean omitting is required. Their names are well-known to the public anyway and thus are certainly not private. As long as it's reliably sourced, there's nothing wrong with inclusion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I support including all the names. There are no privacy concerns. Their names are already in the article. I have not received an answer to my request to explain the space issue, and the argument that we should read the article instead effectively means we should not have infoboxes at all. I am not sure what the fair argument against including them is. HelenOnline 06:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Although it is difficult to know what exactly is the intention behind "For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable", but it seems to not be applicable to Zachary and Cody Williams given that they issued public statements about their father's death. Had they been interested in maintaining privacy, they would not have issued public statements. How hot is the sun? (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not fair to Cody and Zak? Who cares? This isn't a fan site, it's an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia, I might add, created by a community that makes decisions regarding content inclusion based on policy and consensus. Previous consensus was to leave out all three names. No one but those who actually edit this article gave a shit about that consensus, and it was discarded. Now the overridden consensus was replaced by consensus to include Zelda. That's been done. Now there are whiners saying they don't like the consensus. What's the point of getting consensus when it will be tossed out in a day or two after it's reached? Further, what's the point of policy and common sense on name privacy if it's also going to be tossed out in favor of making the article into a fan page? The names of his kids are in the article. That's good enough. Leave the infobox as it is. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 13:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

In short, there is no "name privacy" when such names are well-known to the public. Adding them does NOT make this a "fan page" or "fan site", and it doesn't go against common sense to add when reliably sourced. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there is policy on name privacy. And there's common sense. There is also policy on consensus. There is also policy on content inclusion and content on infoboxes. For infoboxes, less is more. For this article in general, adding their names in the infoxbox doesn't enhance the article or the reader's understanding of the article subject one iota. You got your consensus in opposition to the consensus already in place. Let it be and consider it a compromise to leave it as it is. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 14:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the "policy on name privacy"? can you cite it? As for "less is more", the articles on Dan Quayle and Jeb Bush list all 3 of their children, both the notable ones and the non-notable ones, and I see no formatting issues there with all 3 childrens' names being in the template.

As for "fairness", I think the better argument is WP:NPOV. By listing only one name, rather than all 3, Wikipedia is presenting a non-neutral snapshot of his life. How hot is the sun? (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it wouldn't be neutral to only present one child's name (children not being notable isn't a very convincing reason) and not the others. The only way it could possibly go against policy is if the names weren't reliably sourced. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

How hot is the sun?, in answer to your question, please see WP:BLPNAME. As Dougweller points out below, policies on BLPs are active until 2 years following death, therefore, WPBLPNAME still applies here. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you either missed or are choosing to ignore my response to Dougweller that the 2 year extension only applies "to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends", which is not the case for the name of his children. How hot is the sun? (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I just took a look at WP:BLPNAME, and I'm afraid it's not applicable, given that all the children issued public statements regarding the death of their father. I interpret this to mean that they voluntarily gave up the privacy to their names - as adults, they are no longer minors. WP:BLPNAME would certainly apply if their names were published in the media involuntarily. How hot is the sun? (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Want to try exercising some good faith? I didn't ignore your response, I simply didn't see it. Regardless, WP:BLPNAME makes some good points. Common sense points regarding privacy. And I will always maintain that it's better to err on the side of caution regarding privacy rather than add the names of people in an article subject's life just because we can. WP:INFOBOX also has some good points regarding content in infoboxes. Infoboxes are supposed to contain limited information. Adding names of non-notable children is, from what I see in the MOS on infoboxes, extraneous content that detracts from the article. Another great policy is on consensus. Consensus was reached, and now those from the "Include Zelda!" side of the discussion want more. Based on all this, I see policy, MOS, and common sense being ignored in favor of emotion and caring about fairness in regard to two of Williams' children (to date, that has to be one of the stupidest arguments for keeping content that I've seen). Hence my previous call to just toss it all in the crapper and let the "Include Zelda!" crowd have their way. It's obvious the "Include Zelda" crowd wants a fan page rather than an encyclopedia article, so what's the point in arguing about this any further? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

What may be common sense to you, may not be common sense to someone else. For me, common sense says that if there are no issues to include the names in the article (and none have been raised since the names are all properly sourced), then why not include the names in the template too? I took a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, and I was unable to find anything there that would support supressing the names of the non-notable children. If you can find anything there to support your position, by all means bring it forward. How hot is the sun? (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

:From the infobox MOS: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". The names of Williams' children are not key facts in the article. In reality, Zelda's name isn't a key fact, either. And, allow me to remind, the only reason the earlier consensus to not include Zelda's name was brushed aside and the Rfc on the issue started was because a teenage video game addict made an issue of Zelda's name not being there. He was upset it wasn't included because she had been named after a video game character. Yet another non-key/non-essential/trivial piece of information in the article that has become more unnecessary talk page discussion as a result of the lack of common sense and understanding of what an encyclopedia really is. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I see the problem. You interpret "key facts" as "important facts", whereas I think in this context it is meant in the sense of "highlights". As was noted by someone else, rarely are the spouses and children imporant facts in a persons' notability. As further evidence that "key facts" are meant as "highlights" rather than "important facts", I submit that the template does not have a field call "Breakout role", which is certainly an important fact about Williams' career (and if there was such a field, it would be in the template with a value of Mork from Ork). How hot is the sun? (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong again. Key facts and important facts are not synonymous. Key facts are what unlocks various categories of information on the article subject and leads a reader further in depth regarding the article subject. For this specific article, Williams having children is a key fact and should be included in the infobox. The important facts a reader is led to by the key fact that Williams has three children would be their names, ages, who their mother is, etc. Therefore, their names are not key facts, they are important facts. Williams' breakout role is important information and should be in the article; we are led there by the key fact in the infobox regarding his occupation (actor, comedian) and the years he was active in his occupation (1976–2014). The infobox MOS states, key facts belong in the info box. I think we can now see clearly that the names of his children are not key facts (I would further argue the names of his wives are not key facts, either, but that's another discussion for a different time). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

IMO, once we try to generalize about "common sense" privacy, in a culture addicted to celebrity worship and its check-out stand purveyors, we'll never reach a consensus. It's a matter of personal opinion. And while we've gotten used to seeing personal life details listed in infoboxes, such as lists of spouses, dates married, how and when split up, and the number of children, there's also a good argument that even those basic infobox details are not worthy of being included there. Because of the article format of most biographies, having a lead, photo and infobox, there's probably a subconscious feeling that the facts inside that box are of key relevance. For Williams, then, a lead sentence saying he's notable for being "an American actor and comedian," the inclusion of a list of his wives, marriage dates, and whether they divorced, in that box could easily be claimed as not relevant to his notability, and not worthy of being infoboxed.

As for the number of children, that's an added bit of celeb trivia, IMO; maybe not today, but eventually. And the names of his children? Just because some RS newspaper obituary stated their names, shouldn't make them, automatically, of infobox value, and may actually give them an implied notability just by being printed there. It's also a thin line between reposting their names in an encyclopedia, and giving the tabloids and their paid stalkers another reason to follow them around and even post photos, which some celebs think is crossing the line into private lives. I like what Ewan McGregor wrote a few years ago:

“I come from a country where we’ve probably got the worst tabloid press — all these publications based on people’s private life. It’s disgusting. It’s nobody’s business. As actors, we put ourselves on the screen and that should be enough, that’s exposing enough, without people routing around your dustbins looking for stuff. They’re making millions off people spying and following you around. It’s disgraceful."

Light show (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point about tabloids, but in this particular case, the children made public statements that were reported on by the Los Angeles Times. How hot is the sun? (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt such a consensus could be reached, Light show. However, simply saying "X has a child named Y" isn't by itself harmful. It's not like we're giving away their home address or email or anything. What tabloids say and do is not our concern when we have reliable sources to use in articles. As How hot is the sun said, there is no invasion of Williams' children when they publicly spoke after he died. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If you choose to live a life of crime while being involved with gangs you risk being shot and killed every day, you are not even safe at home and neither are your loved ones. Same goes for people who choose to live in the spotlight, you risk having paparazzi get in your face every day. Your right to privacy is pretty much reserved to your home and that is all and even that is no guarantee. When you choose a profession or way of life, you get what comes with it, limps and all. Still .. should be all kids or no kids in the box, saves from confusion for those who will attempt to continually correct it. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, Slave28. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Differentiating a major RS newspaper like the Los Angeles Times from non-RS tabloids is not as clear-cut as we'd like to assume. If the LA Times took some of their daily "Entertainment" articles and reprinted them weekly in a tabloid size, then sold those at check-outs, guess what we've have: another tabloid. --Light show (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Tabloid size/format is different from tabloid journalism, though. The size of the paper has no effect on its reliability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that WP:BLP still applies for up to 2 years after death. Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BDP, "extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends". Since the names of the children are not contentious nor questionable, it appears that the two year extension to WP:BLP does not apply here. How hot is the sun? (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind we are talking about the infobox, not the article. the childrens' names are already in the article, they don't need to be mentioned in the infobox. Further, info boxes are to be kept short and sweet. But, hey - now that we've cluttered up the info box with trivial info on Williams' notable daughter, why not clutter it up more with all of his children's' names. Let's just forget about what policy on info boxes states and throw it all out the window. While we're at it, let's just start adding all kinds of stuff that goes against policy and disregard consensus already reached? Ignore all rules, right? Gawd. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The same argument could be used for spouses then ... why not just put 3, let the reader find the details in the article. Since it seems the goal is to turn the infobox into an anorexic qudrilateral. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The concern for clutter is noted. However, it appears that 3 children listed in an infobox is manageable. See Dan Quayle and Jeb Bush. If he had 20 children, like Jacob Zuma, then it would probably be impractical to list them all. How hot is the sun? (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

After the lead text, photo, and infobox, the next most visible area is the table of contents. When a bio already has a linked "Personal life" section, especially with sub-sections for "Marriages and children," and their personal life is mostly unrelated to their notability, then including a list of spouses or a list of children can be seen as both redundant and irrelevant. Why fill up an infobox with those names? For celebs like Elizabeth Taylor, however, where each of their marriages and divorces became major RS news items, such a list is at least relevant to their notability, especially where they married other stars. --Light show (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a question of why have personal information in the infobox, which is out of scope to this discussion. This discussion is limited to whether to include the names of two children in the infobox given that the infobox template already allows naming children in the infobox. How hot is the sun? (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic dispute

Winkelvi, even if you disagree with including Zelda, there is no reason to make snarky remarks like that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

One person's snark is another person's exasperated honesty and stating the obvious. You all are cherry picking policy as it suits your agenda. In response to that I state the obvious: fuck consensus and policy and ignore all rules so you can turn this article into a piece of shit fan page rather than an encyclopedia article. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Somebody is in desparate need of a WP:WIKIBREAK. How hot is the sun? (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone needs to recall that we are to comment on edits and policy here, not editors. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, and do that with WP:CIVILITY, meaning no words such as "f***" or "s***". How hot is the sun? (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of the words "fuck" and "shit" (along with "goddamn", "bullshit", and other words along the same line) is not incivility. Wikipedia is not censored. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, which is why your words have not been deleted. WP:CIVILITY does mean that you discuss things calmly without the use of profanity. How hot is the sun? (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to quote policy that states profanity not specifically directed at another editor is considered uncivil. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:CIVILITY: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments." (emphasis added). How hot is the sun? (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Using profanity is not uncivil. Directing it at other editors as a personal attack is. Therein lies the difference. Not once have I used profanity in a manner that would be seen as a personal attack or as directed specifically toward another editor. Like I said, feel free to quote policy that states profanity not specifically directed at another editor is considered uncivil. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to get too much off topic, so this will be my last comment on this, but I interpret "profanity not specifically directed at another editor" as "rudeness", with WP:CIVILITY prohibiting rudeness. Call it "common sense". How hot is the sun? (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I shit you not: I call it "your personal interpretation of policy is irrelevant". Goddamn it all to hell if I were fucking wrong (good thing I'm not). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)