Talk:Robin Williams/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Bicycle collection and riding

According to the Wall Street Journal, "Williams collected bikes of all types, but he was passionate about one brand in particular: Pegoretti". His obsessive collecting of bicycles is compared to Jay Leno and his cars. In 2003, Bicycling Magazine speculated that he had a warehouse filled with the world's largest collection of exotic bicycles. This was a passion of his, and size and scope of his collection was unprecedented. What part of "world's largest collection" don't you understand. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote the footnote, reordered the content including the text. This is a footnote, not even in the main text. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the following sources quotes Williams as saying his bicycle collection "there are too many to count." He also donated a Pegoretti to charity. These could be additional sources, but I haven't put them in yet. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It's trivia, cluttered up the reference unnecessarily, looked like an advertisement, and doesn't belong in the article. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. You could say the same thing about the Jay Leno article (you'd be wrong) which has a whole section dedicated to his car collection. One reader's trivia is another's important fact. This was widely reported in the media. Just google "Robin Williams bicycling" and you will see that there has been a lot of interest in the subject. For you to carp about five sentences (three of which are in a footnote) shows only that you are not a bicyclist. (Not that there is anything wrong with that. But it is your personal opinion, not an objective standard.)

Of course, we could do a whole section with a lot more detail. Or even a separate article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

One point to consider here is that the Jay Leno comparison is likely to be unhelpful for a significant proportion of readers. Leno is relatively unknown outside the U.S., while Williams had international recognition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

"My favorite thing to do is ride a bicycle. I ride road bikes. And for me, it's mobile meditation."

WP:3RR applies to you, Winkelvi too. Don't edit war. Let's see if we can come to a consensus here after this is given time to percolate. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop cluttering up references with promotional and advertisement-like content that amounts to trivia and fan cruft. Adding more about bicycles in the article (even embedded within the reference) adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the article subject. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't do that. Thanks for sharing your opinion, but just saying "no" in a COMMANDING VOICE isn't moving this conversation in a constructive direction. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

References

But you did do that. You cluttered up the reference unnecessarily. You cluttered it up with something that looked like agenda-pushing spam and an advertisement. You cluttered up the reference with something doesn't add to the article nor to the reader's understanding of the article subject. And it looks like fan-cruft and is trivia. So yes, you did do that. If you want, ask for more discussion on this and try to see if consensus will build. That's what you said earlier today to Masem on his talk page, that you want consensus to build. Well, then, do something to get consensus one way or the other. But don't keep stubbornly re-adding something that has been taken out for sound reasons. You have yet to try and discuss the addition, all I've seen you do is get mad because it's been removed and tell others they don't know what they are talking about. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It is you alone that has come up with this. No WP:Spam is involved. The references were not "cluttered up." I have noted that some of our editors don't like the Jay Leno connection as it is deemed too American. It is a concrete comparison that was made by the Wall Street Journal, not by me. But if we want to drop that to get to consensus, I am willing to talk about it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm the only one who's publicly taking a stand against it, however, I know for certain that one other editor approved of the removal of the content. I also don't see anyone coming to your defense or telling me that removing it was the wrong thing to do. Regardless, if you take steps necessary to build consensus on this content dispute, you will know who agrees with you and who doesn't. It's really simple to do. You've been in Wikipedia long enough, surely you've had a discussion go to the consensus-building stage? Why not take it there and see how it goes rather than continuing to bang on about it here? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree we need consensus. You have concerns, and I understand them. Right now you and I are the only players in town. So to speak. I think we should discuss this and see if we can come to to a mutually satisfactory solution. This does not have to be a test of will or strength. What do you think? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I've already given you my reasons for removing what you insist on including. You have yet to address those reasons. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone should clearly state the key issues first, ideally one at a time, and as simple y/n questions. --Light show (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing edit protection

How do you guys feel about removing the edit protection on this page? Now that the initial craze is over I feel that vandalism is less likely and that it might be time to allow more people to edit this page and provide helpful information. Craig131 (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

We can try it. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to ask the protecting administrator, MusikAnimal, to remove it first. If you don't get a response, you can then post it at WP:RFPP. Mike V • Talk 19:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delayed response. I think we may run into more disruption but I'm okay with giving this a try. Prior to Williams' death the article was semi'd indefinitely, but that was for BLP violations. I'll keep my eye on the history and we'll go from there. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Clearly this isn't going to work out right now. However despite previous choices in duration, I'm only going to semi-protect for three months, hopefully things will have cooled off by then. Remember any unconfirmed user can make an edit request, just click the big blue button here. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

3RR and edit warring

User:AH999 is persisting in removing the hidden text on cause of death, and has already broken 3RR in his edit warring, which he has been warned about.
He is removing the description, including hidden text stating:-

"[[Asphyxia]] due to [[hanging]]<br>(preliminary autopsy results)<!---Please keep the cause of death specific to that of the coroner's statements until they release a full autopsy report. This will keep the current citations in the article in line with the information here--->"

He is inserting

"death_cause = Suicide by Hanging"

AFAIK the coroner has yet to issue the full report - can someone please confirm whether this is still the case? - Arjayay (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Find some good recent sources to see what they say. Then add that info here for some consensus on changes. --Light show (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Further, even if the report is suicide, I can't see a problem by saying "Asphysia by hanging" as the cause of death (assuming that will be the cause), but yes, let's wait for the coroner report which I have yet to see news of its final release. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

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:

• Popeye (1980) [film debut]
• The World According to Garp (1982) [first dramatic film role]
• Moscow on the Hudson (1984) [3 nominations; 5th best-reviewed film]
• Good Morning, Vietnam (1987) [3 wins, 4 nominations; 4th best-reviewed film; 10th highest-grossing film (4th adjusted)]
• Dead Poets Society (1989) [1 win, 5 nominations; 8th best-reviewed film; 10th highest-grossing film adjusted]
• Awakenings (1990) [1 win, 3 nominations; 7th best-reviewed film]
• The Fisher King (1991) [1 win, 4 nominations; 9th best-reviewed film]
• Hook (1991) [1 win; 7th highest-grossing film adjusted)]
• Aladdin (1992) [4 wins; 2nd best-reviewed film; 3rd highest-grossing film (2nd adjusted)]
• Mrs. Doubtfire (1993) [4 wins, 2 nominations; 2nd highest-grossing film (1st adjusted)]
• Jumanji (1995) [2 nominations; 12th highest-grossing film (13th adjusted)]
• The Birdcage (1996) [1 win, 2 nominations; 9th highest-grossing film (8th adjusted)]
• Good Will Hunting (1997) [3 wins, 4 nominations; 1st best-reviewed film; 6th highest-grossing film adjusted and unadjusted]
• Patch Adams (1998) [3 nominations; 7th highest-grossing film (9th adjusted)]
• Insomnia (2002) [1 nomination; 3rd best-reviewed film]
• One Hour Photo (2002) [2 wins, 7 nominations; 10th best-reviewed film]
• Night at the Museum (2006) [1st highest-grossing film (3rd unadjusted)]
• Happy Feet (2006) [1 nominations; 4th highest-grossing film (5th adjusted)]
• Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (2009) [5th highest-grossing film]
• World's Greatest Dad (2009) [6th best-reviewed film]
• Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb (2014) [final physical film role]

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)

Per consensus reached on Chelsea Clinton

There have been only three principal positions opposing the inclusion of the names of Zachary and Cody in the infobox

1. WP:BLP concerns, mostly based on WP:BLPNAME
   • This reason has been rejected in a similar argument at WP:BLPN#Chelsea Clinton since their names have been widely reported (and so far there is no objection to mentioning their names in the article - only in the infobox)
2. Clutter - the concern that 3 is too many names for an infobox
   • This argument is somewhat baseless given that there are only 3 names to list, not 20
3. Tabloidiness - the concern that it gives the article the feel of a tabloid
   • argument falls apart since the names have been reported in WP:RS

Therefore, only the 2nd argument remains, and I see it as a rather weak argument. How hot is the sun? (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Except if we are putting the names of his children, we should be identifying under which marriage they were from, and that's where the clutter comes into play. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually no- we don't have to state in the infobox which children are from which marriage. Simply mentioning such detail in prose is enough, and I don't see very many articles include such detail in infoboxes. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

how about this? How hot is the sun? (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

User:SNUGGUMS, feel free to revert if my edit deviates from the Manual of Style. How hot is the sun? (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

How hot is the sun? is a liar. No consensus was reached at WP:BLPN#Chelsea Clinton. When an editor feels the need to resort to lies to support a point of view, there's probably something very wrong with that point of view. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not leave the children parameter at 3 and just adjust the spouse parameter then;

Valerie Velardi
(1978–1988; divorced,
1 child; Zachary)
Marsha Garces
(1989–2010; divorced,
2 children; Zelda & Cody)
Susan Schneider
(2011–2014; widowed)

--[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Cut the crap and your bullshit manipulation games, Slave. There's no consensus at the Chelsea Clinton article, at the BLP Noticeboard discussion about the article, or at all at this point. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Any consensus formed at Chelsea Clinton is local and cannot be used to determine content in another article. A local consensus also cannot override the wider consensus of the general community of general guidelines and policy, whatever that may actually be. Discussion here should determine the consensus for this article.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

And there is definitely no consensus at Chelsea Clinton anyway. Do editors suffer consequences for lying? HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No, they get elected to public office. --ThylekShran (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Note When there is an ongoing discussion that clearly has not yet come to a consensus, the solution is not simply to get frustrated and push through the change you want. I'd think it would be common sense, but please read WP:BRD. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Since a consensus was already reached for only Zelda to be listed and since policy states that infoboxes should have as little information as possible, I support the continued exclusion of the two male children. --ThylekShran (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Without getting too involved, as I have been already per recent AN/I post, I'd just like to say a few things before I stop watching this page. When consensus cannot be reached, you should seek dispute resolution. WP:BRD is an essay that no one is required to follow. Meanwhile there's no policy about how much information can be put in infoboxes, but there is a guideline. In the end it always yields to consensus. Remember to stay cool when the editing gets hot, and don't be afraid to ask for a third opinion. Also be sure to stay on-topic. Reviewing the talk page guidelines might offer some much needed insight in that regard. In my opinion all the commotion I've observed over the past two weeks is just plain silly. Disagreement is normal, but don't get sidetracked and start making accusations against others. Civility is a fundamental backbone behind Wikipedia. The rest is up for debate. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

O'Captain my Captain ... your words have been heard, or should I say read. Thank you for the advise and wisdom. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's wrap up the children parameter amicably

I suggest we open a voting period between now and Sunday evening, tally up and put the matter to a close. if everyone participating in this hotly debated issue would like to be so kind as to put all animosities of previous discussions aside, we can wrap this up, and move on to more constructive things. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

WP does not use votes to determine outcomes, it uses consensus. --MASEM (t) 06:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine a consensus period then ... is that better ? --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it, since my view hasn't changed. HiLo48 (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Slave28, I suggest someone sets up another formal RFC. I think the best way to do it amicably is to refrain from debate within the RFC. We do not need unanimous agreement only consensus. HelenOnline 07:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't we wait until the first RFC closes before starting up another one? Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. The question is different. HelenOnline 07:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

How would we define consensus? It cannot be on the numbers, because we don't vote here, and some trashy arguments should just be ignored when seeking consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If consensus is not obvious, we can request formal closure by an uninvolved editor at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. HelenOnline 08:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It takes a bit of reading, but if you look through all the comments on this talk page it actually does seem clear that A) There is consensus to include Zelda Williams in the infobox and B)There is no consensus to include the names of the other children in the infobox.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

My goal was to try and wrap this up out of courtesy for the amount of time MusikAnimal wasted on this issue. But in all honesty, Yaksar is correct, a consensus was reached regarding the use of the notable child. (which is clearly what the guideline is for infoboxes in the first place). I still believe we need a deadline for a resolution, and if none is agreed upon, going HelenOnline's route seems like a logical choice. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment As I pointed out previously, the general consensus was already reached and those aggressively (and at times rudely) pushing for Zelda's name in the infobox became even more aggressive and insisted on all the children's names in the infobox. Beyond that, totally ignoring what the consensus and Rfc was really about, the other kids' names were just put it as if it was a given (which it was not). It sounds good to want to end this amicably, but it already was ended with consensus for Zelda alone and editors without a care for the actual consensus and premise of the Rfc we had decided on. The aggressive, agenda-based editors decided their own they would have their way no matter what, hence, the names of all three were then put in the infobox. That's not amicable behavior. There were enough of us who understand that if children's names are included at all (not preferable) it's just to be notable children. Compromise would be for the infobox to read "3, including Zelda Williams" and let it go. Wanting to start yet another Rfc that's bound to incite more rudeness, incivility, and endless arguing is asking for too much and seems quite pointy to me. If you want the close to be amicable, then let it be with Zelda's name alone. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I would be in agreement with this. Should the same formula be applied on Marsha Graves' page as the two are linked and if both do not share the same style there is bound to be future edits made. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

As vague as numbers can be, I will say that listing simply a number would definitely be more neutral than something like "*number*, including ______". Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is more about notability than neutrality. Otherwise, we'd probably have articles for Zach and Cody as well as for Zelda. :-P --ThylekShran (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the WP:Five pillars is actually neutrality. Giving her more attention in the father's article simply because she meets the notability criteria for WP:BIO when they don't isn't exactly neutral. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That just sounds kind of silly. We give attention to significant and notable subjects, weighing these the most. Otherwise, Barack Obama, Sr. would have to empasize just as much his 7 other children as it did his notable son.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

In an Rfc votes count towards consensus. Or more clearly an Rfc is for determining which thing the community prefers the most. Basically I already think the consensus is in favor of including Zelda's name. An Rfc can go on for a month. An uninvolved editor can close it after that or if consensus is heavily in favor of one option. Also I don't think there should be another Rfc started just because some people are struggling with the concept of "consensus". KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Resting place

Basically I don't understand if this parameter even serves any useful purpose. I don't understand why it's even been added. Not being rude but why would anyone care what happened to Williams' remains. Nor I think it is important what happened to his remains. It seems like an utterly useless and unimportant section and should be removed from the infobox. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

For other famous people who are buried rather than cremated, knowing where they can visit the gravesite can be memoriable; noting that someone has been cremated and ashes spread indicates that there is no such thing. Mind you, I would agree that as an infobox parameter it is probably excessive weight on this (this is acceptable data in the body) --MASEM (t) 05:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. In a general sense, this is used for where one is buried. In Williams' case, it's not quite as clear cut given how he was cremated and his ashes where spread. It could perhaps be mentioned in prose that his ashes were scattered, but I'd say remove it from "resting place" because the ash spreading doesn't really constitute a resting place. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It's amazing how bloated the English Wikipedia infoboxes are with facts that readers should be looking in the article for. A quick peak at the French version of the Robin Williams page shows a lean to the point infobox. No wonder there are so many heated debates on here. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)