Jump to content

Talk:Robin Williams/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

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

Consensus is to use |children= 3, including [[Zelda Williams]] in the infobox, with the rationale to list only the subject's notable children. czar ♔ 18:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

  • 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 [1] 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, include all: 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)
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)
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)
  • Include- I don't see a compelling reason not to include it. Most of the arguments to leave out seem preference based while the arguments for inclusion seem policy based. I see claims of bad faith but no evidence of it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Include names of children with articles. The relevant concept for performers is: was the person merely an actor in a movie, or were they the director, producer, or head writer? in other words, is it their CREATION? kids can then be considered a "creation". and this wont become a problem, as children only have 2 (maybe 3) parents, so even if all their parents are notable, it wont produce bloated navboxes. same in reverse: parents usually have no more than a few notable children, so that wont clog the navboxes either. the goal here is a workable navbox, and listing all their roles makes them unworkable and useless. drawing the line at notable children seems to me a very reasonable compromise.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:58, 3 October 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:

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 ([2]). -- 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)
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: [3]; then, look at the article section: [4]. 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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Means of death

I would like to see more elaborate details on his death. I think this proposal speaks for itself, so I needn't include justification. Before I do so myself, or if someone else would be courteous as to, I would like to ask if the following paragraph is in keeping with wikipedian policies and is of relevance.

Boyd, Williams' assistant found him hanging in a bedroom, slightly suspended in a seated position, with superficial cut marks on the inside of his left wrist; rigor mortis had since set in. He was pronounced dead at 12:02 p.m. on Monday. Williams was last seen alive by his wife at approximately 10:30 p.m. on Sunday, Boyd added, before she went to bed. Around 10:30 a.m. the next morning, Williams' wife left the house, believing Williams to still be asleep, but his assistant grew concerned around 11:45 a.m. when Williams did not respond to repeated knocks on his bedroom door, Boyd relayed. Upon gaining entrance to the bedroom, the assistant found Williams clothed, hanging against a closed closet door, with a belt secured around his neck, and the other end of the belt wedged between the door and the door frame, Boyd explained. With respect to the cut marks on his wrist, Boyd noted that a pocket knife with dried red material that appeared consistent with dried blood on it was found near Williams' body. An autopsy was conducted on Tuesday morning in Napa County. Williams' publicist, Mara Buxbaum, told The Hollywood Reporter Monday that the actor, "has been battling severe depression of late. This is a tragic and sudden loss. The family respectfully asks for their privacy as they grieve during this very difficult time."

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.44.32 (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

While the only absolute requirement for inclusion is that such information has to be reliably sourced, it seems like an excess amount to add. Some could be included, but not all of it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It's too, long, macabre, and voyeuristic; it smacks of rubber-necking at a grisly highway accident. The details of his death are not notable in an article about him and give undue weight to his death, they're irrelevant, and even cruel. At most, add an additional reference after the word asphyxiated to a source where this information can be found, but I would vote against that as well. Mathglot (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Mathglot. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree. In fact it would be beyond macabre, and truly strange, to include such details and end the paragraph with the suggested, "The family respectfully asks for their privacy as they grieve during this very difficult time." --Light show (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree. I would support more detail (trace the history, notice how I did put in more details that were excised by other editors) but what the anon IP is proposing definitely crosses the line into TMI. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Excessive and morbid. All that should be there is the cause, place and date of death and his age at time of death. There's no reason to include details of how he went about hanging himself, the exact position he was found in or what other wounds he gave himself. He hanged himself with a belt at his home in Paradise Cay, CA, on August 11, 2014, as a result of severe depression. He was 63. Boom, done. No other information is relevant or needed. --ThylekShran (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Smacks of recentism, and is horribly unencyclopaedic. Look at pretty much any encyclopaedia (online or paper) and the death covers less than a line of 99% of any biography ("died of a heat attack at home", etc). What we have at the moment is almost excessive (we don't need to mention the Marin County Sheriff's Office deputy coroner - it reads as a newspaper, not an encyclopaedia), but it's just about OK, and certainly doesn't need bloating out. - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Add to the other dissent statements here, but I think we're also still waiting on a true official autopsy report (which of course, probably has been done but likely sealed for privacy reasons, so not to expect it soon), and so any of the other details - short of having appeared to been suicide - is wide speculation that the sensational side of the press has generated. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, autopsy results are public record in California so they can't be sealed for privacy reasons. For the record, an official autopsy report is expected by early November, having been delayed by over a month on Sept. 30. Results are due back by Nov. 3, so expect a report shortly after (or possibly even a little before) that date. --ThylekShran (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, wasn't aware of the delay. Again, we should judge what that says to see if any other details are needed but I'd strongly recommended keeping to the bare minimum. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of details of friendship with Christopher Reeve

Per this edit, @SNUGGUMS: removed this claiming the friendship details should be on Reeve's page, and then when I reverted, they re-reverted saying the friendship is trivia. (There are other edits in that, I'm not worried about those).

I take strong offense to calling the friendship between a well-known comedian and a well-known actor who had a tragic accident as "trivial". The details of that should be on both pages, not just one (that's how "building the web" works). --MASEM (t) 04:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My removal had nothing to do with how well-known they were. Friendships in general tend not to be included on pages. Friendship details actually shouldn't be on Reeve's page either, I'm saying that his death and maybe custody details of his son should only be on Reeve's page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Then by that logic we should remove any marriage and children and parents info. I agree that if we listed every person that we could document as a friend of Williams, that list would be trivial; but the friendship he had with Reeve is the subject of discussion by sources, elevating it past a simple friendship aspect; it also shows part of Williams' charitible effort. --MASEM (t) 04:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Agree with Masem. The friendship would be a trivial mention if it was only involving their days at Julliard. The friendship lasted beyond Julliard, extended into Reeve's well-publicized accident then beyond that and Reeve's death and his wife's death to a relationship with Reeve's child. That's definitely not a trivial chain of events. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Marriages, family members, and partners are different than friendships. Unless a critical part of career or something, friends aren't something we need to mention. It's not like Matt Stone and Trey Parker, who are frequent collaborators and have closely intertwined careers. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks to me, with Williams reaching out to Reeve following his accident and then reaching out to Reeve's orphaned son, that their lives "intertwined". Just because they were in the same business, "intertwined" doesn't have to be related only to their careers. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The early life section has three paragraphs dealing with their friendship, which began at Julliard. This later life friendship is a continuation of that, and from the details, Reeve was one of his oldest and best friends. The other brief personal life details, being that they're so short, also adds substance to his bio, which included more than just acting. From the article text, he may have been his closest friend, and the only close friend mentioned. --Light show (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
At the very least, it doesn't warrant a separate section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Where else would it fit? It's a personal life detail. --Light show (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Considering the facts the three of us have brought forth, I think it does merit its own separate section. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmm...... maybe in "Early life and education", there could be something like "After Reeve's death, Williams provided financial support to his son". On its own, it would be a very short section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
He also paid Reeve's medical bills when his insurance ran out. It may not be a very clean fit, however, since the early life sections are focused on the school.--Light show (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
There are the medical bills, though remember that the text can be fiddled around with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2014

Under Personal life: Marriages and children please change "Williams married his third wife, graphic designer Susan Schneider, on October 23, 2011" to "Williams married his third wife, graphic designer Susan Schneider, on October 22, 2011" because, as stated in the US Weekly article used for original citation, the date of their marriage ceremony is currently incorrect on Robin Williams' Wikipedia page.

Here is the source again for reference: http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/robin-williams-weds-20112410

Toezydoze (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Top 25

See Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/August 10 to 16, 2014
—67.100.127.71 (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

REwrite time

The article is very hard to read with many odd quotes that can easily be paraphrased and a personal biography style that should be swamped out for an Encyclopedia style/tone. I have some time next week and was wondering if anyone has any suggestions on what is best to move this article from its current form to a GA level article. -- Moxy (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Dementia and Parkinson's

In the article, under William's death, it states that "an examination of his brain tissue revealed the presence of "diffuse Lewy body dementia," which may have been misdiagnosed as Parkinson's disease." Abnormal Lewy bodies, however, are found in both Parkinson's patients and people with LBD, the only way to distinguish the two is by determining how the disease progressed. It is therefore, inaccurate to say he was "misdiagnosed." [1]

It says he *may* have been misdiagnosed; I think it stated as such in whatever article was cited, probably because most Lewy body dementia patients are initially misdiagnosed with Parkinson's. Also, I seem to recall that Lewy bodies are more widespread in early dementia than in early Parkinson's, which I think is how they concluded it to be dementia. Having said all that, we can probably remove the part about possible misdiagnosis; not sure it's really needed. --ThylekShran (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

A News Story http://www.cybereport.com/public/actor-robin-williams-dead-at-63-38476.html

Committed suicide/died by suicide

I've made a couple attempts to change language saying Williams "committed suicide" to say instead that he "died by suicide." There is a movement among mental health advocates to stop saying that people "committed suicide," because of the association of "committed" with legal proceedings, and the stigma this can cause in people having suicidal ideation, who should be seeking help. I think this is an important change we could make, that does nothing negative, and would be good for a lot of people. I'll include a link on why this change of language is something important to consider. I'd like to edit the article accordingly, and tried to do so before, but it was reverted. I hope I can get some support on this.

http://www.suicide.org/stop-saying-committed-suicide.html

http://www.psychology.org.au/Content.aspx?ID=5048

Waking Dreamer (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This had been discussed before (near the time he died), and brought to a larger input, and it is generally not yet accepted to change language like this; we don't censor or tone down language to be "politically correct", and this prior discussion ended with keeping with current practice to say "committeed suicide". (not just for Williams but any other notable person whose death was through suicide). --MASEM (t) 21:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of political correctness, which is not an actual concept anyway. It's a matter of take a stance that helps people who may be feeling suicidal. I don't see any downside to making this change. Only upsides. Let's seriously consider it, please. It's not a matter of censorship or "toning down," it's a matter of making a small language change to benefit people. Waking Dreamer (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

  • "died by suicide" = 118 "committed suicide" = 13,834. The 118 entries need to be switched. Death is already part of the word "suicide" so it is redundant. I am part of the superfluous redundancy squad squad. It is like saying someone was "killed by murder". If you want to change the way Wikipedia uses the phrase your ad hoc campaign one biography at a time is not the way to do it. Lobby for the change at the Wikipedia Manual of Style. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"committed suicide" is the common term and there is nothing wrong with that phrase. Technically it is a crime in many places. There isn't anything that can be done about it once the act has been performed, but the police can stop you from killing yourself. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 22:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Discography section

Should he have a section for his comedy albums? Smosh has one. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Death of Robin Williams

I think there should be an article titled "Death of Robin Williams." What do y'all think? --70.190.229.97 (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No, not really enough material for a separate article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
God, no. It wasn't notable enough for its own article. The idea of an article on it seems obscene, to be honest. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Definitely not. There's very little to talk about since there was no major ceremony as there was with someone like Michael Jackson. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Worth a shot, right? --70.190.229.97 (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Not going to happen, sorry. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it should. And why do people keep thinking he died in Tiburon, California since he really died in Paradise Cay, California? --70.190.229.97 (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Influenced

Williams was an influence to Ashley Tisdale, as shown in her article. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

So what. Williams probably influenced a lot of people. What makes her special enough to be listed as the one individual we single out as having been influenced by Williams? I don't see it and recommend removing this field from the infobox. Msnicki (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to agree that this should be removed; the list of people that were likely influenced by Williams is going to be rather long. On their respective pages they can list that, but we shouldn't list it here. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree. I've removed the "influenced" field per common sense. Now let's have an invigorating infobox war. Bishonen | talk 18:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC).
(edit conflict)Wow, there's some definite attitude happening here (won't name who). If "Influenced" is a legitimate itemization in the infobox, why shouldn't it be utilized? I say keep Tisdale (because it is now referenced) and look for more to put in there. Saying he influenced a lot of people is trying to invoke WP:CRYSTAL to a certain degree, isn't it? I'm not willing to 86 the field until it becomes a problem. One name with a reference isn't a problem, it's legitimate content. And, it shouldn't be removed until consensus is reached,Bishonen, especially while there's a discussion on it happening. I'd appreciate it if you'd do the right thing and restore it until this discussion and quest for consensus is completed. As we all know, that can take days to happen, not minutes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Meh--just one name? and that one not the most important one? No, we have either some important ones or none at all. Bishonen, I will be glad to get involved in an infobox war, but only if Gerda joins, and only if I manage to start up a couple socks. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

See below Awards

I think maybe see below for his awards in the infobox can be necessary for now. --70.190.229.97 (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is to provide a summary of the article for casual readers. Per MOS:INFOBOX "Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function." meamemg (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
An awards entry in an infobox is more helpful when either the list is pretty short or a major reason why the individual is notable. Williams received a lot of awards over the years, too many to stuff into an infobox and they really aren't the reason he's notable. Except as a hyperlink, I don't think "see below" really adds anything you don't get from the contents box. I also agree that Meamemg appears to be correct on the guidelines. Msnicki (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"Tributes" section

What should I do to improve the "Tributes" section? Shall I not add as much celebrities? Because I feel we need the references, which I think are necessary. --70.190.229.97 (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the question isn't so much about the sources, but about whether it is relevant or useful to have a list of people who gave tributes. I think a section similar to what we have currently, where major events and comments from his family are noted is more in line with what is normal. See, for example, Bob_Hope#Death. I am sure there could be a long list of people who gave tributes here too, but instead just key representative tributes are noted. meamemg (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Very odd section with odd quotes. Do our readers care about some random sing-along or some place played one of his many movies...I think not. The problem with sections like this is that they are just a bunch of random things by random unrelated people (a news section if you will - with hundred more stories that could be added...but are also not relevant to his life,,that will be dead links in a few months). I agree with meamemg only representative tributes (family) should be mentioned. -- Moxy (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with both Meamemg and Moxy. I don't think this would be helpful content. We tend to be pretty conservative in WP:BLPs and in our biographies of the recently deceased. We try to avoid allowing them to become hagiographies. Msnicki (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Then what if I re-added it, but just not with so many people? I think it should be necessary, not just for his family mentions. Because Robin was a very famous, talented, and loved actor. --70.190.229.97 (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Could a statement that many celebrities gave tributes, including cites to some of the previously added news articles solve this? meamemg (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you be more specific about who you'd like on the list and why? Perhaps there's a list you might gain a consensus for adding, but I think you're going to have a hard time convincing most people. Msnicki (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, celebrities like James Woods, Miley Cyrus, the cast of Mrs. Doubtfire, other actors as well. --70.190.229.97 (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone over age 12 care what Miley Cyrus thought of Williams? WWGB (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Filmography

I watched a movie recently it was called "A merry friggin christmas', release date was some time in 2014 and it starred robin williams .I wondered if you would include this movie in robin williams' movie credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.113.82 (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

A Merry Friggin' Christmas can be found listed at Robin Williams filmography. As for the list of movies on this page, there is currently some disagreement as to what films should be listed. Right now the list is even in all columns and contains all of his popular and acclaimed films; the addition of one of his little-known, critically-panned films is unnecessary, IMHO. --ThylekShran (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Cherry-picking the list to only include certain films is NOT neutral. That's one of the reasons why Ashton Kutcher failed a GAN nomination back in October 2006, even though there wasn't a separate page for filmography. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, go ahead and add the rest of his movies then. Have fun. :) --ThylekShran (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
SNUGGUMS, I think you've been told before (not just by me), it's redundant to have all films listed on the actor's bio page when there is a separate filmography page. It defeats the purpose of splitting off to another page (the bio page is too large). It would be better to have no list than to list too much. You could say the same thing ("cherry-picking") about the lead section. We have to be selective (even though it's subjective) about what titles go there. --Musdan77 (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, it is NOT redundant to list them all and give a "main article:______" or "see also:______" referral link to filmography. It isn't "too much" and does NOT "defeat the purpose" of anything. There is the idea of simply listing filmography page under "see also", which would be much more neutral than a cherry-picked and POV list of feature films. If not listing all films, I'd be content to just list the page under "see also". The lead is (somehow) a different story. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
A list in the main article is repetitive and pointless when there is a Filmography article. Leave the section empty, other than the link, like the articles on Streep, Nicholson etc. WWGB (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
It's fine to list a page under "see also", but referral links with things like "see also:_____" or "main:_____" are NOT enough to warrant separate sections per WP:PROPERSPLIT. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be confusing the "See template", used at the beginning of a section, with a "See also" section. An otherwise empty section uses the "See template". WWGB (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The "see" template also redirects to "further" template. Regardless of what template is used, it is NOT APPROPRIATE to have a filmography section with only a link to the filmography page. Per WP:PROPERSPLIT, a split is not done correctly if a section only contains a referral link with any template. It would, however, be fine to simply list a filmography page under a "see also" section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't see it as cherry picking or being not neutral. It's just listing the films that he's most known for or gained most recognition for or received awards for. Listing every single film is just too much and looks busy. It's not like there needs to be a whole filmography section present when there is an entire page dedicated to it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind in the "Film" section we have a partial rundown of films, and with certain films noted for specific reasons. I would argue that if we're worried about cherry picking, the films listed in that section would serve better than either a cherry-picked or a full list. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
That section would indeed serve better than a cherry-picked list per NPOV. For a more broad article, it would be worth looking further into his career. For why it is not neutral to cherry-pick films, see Talk:Ashton Kutcher#GA Review as an example, even though there wasn't a separate page at the time for his filmography. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
[I would have returned sooner but I've been having major computer problems.] OK, you refer to WP:PROPERSPLIT; in number 6, it says: "Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article." And, "If all the content of the section is being removed (e.g. in the case of a list) use the "See" template." It says that the summary should be in prose. Now, when a Discography page is made from a split, only the studio albums are to be listed in the parent article (and that list is relatively short). If there was a criteria like that for films, then it would be NPOV -- and that's what the person was saying at Talk:Ashton Kutcher#GA Review. Musdan77 (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I was aiming for a similar concept to this listing studio albums on discography sections when listing all films. If I were to add prose, I would probably say something like "Williams was featured in _______ films throughout his career" and then list the films. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, you don't seem to be reading what you give links to. It says, "the musician's primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works." Not "all". And it says, "If a musician has released an extremely large number of albums, it may be better to describe their discography in a prose summary. See, for example, Tangerine Dream#Discography." Musdan77 (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not so much me not reading pages as it was emphasizing certain points of them. Studio albums are considered major works compared to live/compilation/EPs. From what I've observed, feature films are considered more major than TV shows. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Nice try, but they don't equate like that. The example given at WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines is of Mariah Carey's studio albums, and they total 14. That's why I think that if there is a list of films in a discography section, it should be no more than 20 titles. Also, nothing says that it would have to only be feature films. It's supposed to be a "summary of major works" "of the subtopic's article". If a major work (what they're known for or what propelled their career) is a TV show, then it should be included as well. Musdan77 (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
In any case, it didn't seem neutral to only list certain films and not others, especially with "selected" in the section title. I'd be willing to only have his filmography page listed under "see also". There most certainly should not just be a filmography section with only a referral link. If there are no objections within the next 24 hours, I will simply move it to there. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, like what Musdan77 said, I think his filmography section should be like Tangerine Dream#Discography. It makes a lot of sense to me to have something like that. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem in this case is how it currently is titled "selected filmography", and "selected" lists are POV. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see it as a problem. It may be selected, but it's what he is mainly known for and have gotten recognition for. Not just films where he played a minor role. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Ashton Kutcher#GA Review for why "selected" lists aren't neutral. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I get that. But it could be a section that just says Williams acted in ___ many films throughout his career, or something like that. That's how Tangerine Dream#Discography is set up. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm..... looking at that article, one or two sentences hardly seems enough to constitute a separate section per WP:Manual of Style/Layout#Paragraphs. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, (1) you're still stuck on saying "there most certainly should not just be a filmography section with only a referral link", even after I quoted from PROPERSPLIT: "If all the content of the section is being removed (e.g. in the case of a list) use the "See" template instead of the "Main" template." (2) Talk:Ashton Kutcher#GA Review is not a good source to say that "selected" lists shouldn't be used. (a) The editor there didn't say not to have a Selected filmography section, but that there should be "criteria for inclusion in the list". (b) A discussion comment made 8 years ago doesn't have much bearing in a discussion today. Now, here are just 3 examples of Featured bios of actors that have "selected" lists: Charlie Chaplin#Filmography (which gives a list of only the films he directed [11]), Bette Davis#Selected filmography (a list of about 30), and Julianne Moore#Filmography (a list in prose [about 20]). Musdan77 (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROPERSPLIT says to "Add a summary", which you've overlooked. Leaving just a "see" link most certainly is NOT a summary. The "see" template just has the "further" text appear instead of "main article". It never said to have it be a blank section aside from referral. It's pointless to have a section like that with no other text. My point in referencing Talk:Ashton Kutcher#GA Review was neutrality, and is because this edition of the article failed a GA nomination partially for POV-orientation [Quote: The very description "selected" is POV oriented in that it is using some unknown (and presumably un-objective) criteria for inclusion in the list]. Since the GA criteria was less demanding back in 2006 than it is today, I imagine this wouldn't pass now for GA with a POV orientated list, especially with "selected" in the section title. Regarding Julianne Moore; naming films in prose form isn't really a list. For Bette Davis, see my comment above for "selected" in a section title. In Charlie Chaplin, it says "directed features" instead of "selected", though should probably be adjusted to include 1914's Tillie's Punctured Romance as it was his first feature film. Most of his works prior to 1921's The Kid were short sketches. In any case, since you mentioned the idea of having no list at all, I'd be fine with removing the list and moving filmography page to "see also" section similar to Robert De Niro or Tom Hanks, but not simply removing the list and leaving the filmography section with only a referral link to filmography page (whether it is "main article:______", "see also:______", or "further:______"- "see" template redirects to "further"). Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:PROPERSPLIT also states "If all the content of the section is being removed (e.g. in the case of a list) use the "See" template instead of the "Main" template." So it is appropriate to have a section with nothing but a See template. WWGB (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. You completely overlooked the next step, which says add a summary. A "see" template link IS NOT by itself a summary. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You're still not getting it. Let me explain it this way: it's saying there is an exception. If the section being split off is a list, it can "all" be removed. That's why it says to use the "Main" template if there's a summary, and use the "See" template if there's not. Understand now? I know that the way it's written isn't real clear, and that's why I missed it the first time I read it, but that's what it's saying. If you still disagree, maybe you can start a discussion at WP talk:Splitting. Also, keep in mind that WP:Splitting is not a policy or guideline. And even if it was a guideline, an individual article can overrule a guideline if there is consensus for it. Now, as I said before, what the editor was saying at Talk:Ashton Kutcher#GA Review was that to be a selected filmography it would need a criteria: "in that it is using some unknown (and presumably un-objective) criteria for inclusion in the list". If there is a clear criteria -- like for Charlie Chaplin, it's only those he directed... I gave 3 examples of featured articles (and those were just the first 3 that I looked at) that have selected filmographies -- even though they don't all say "selected filmography", that's what they are. Oh, and yes, even though it is contained in a prose format paragraph, it is still technically a list -- because there are consecutive multiple titles only separated by commas. Musdan77 (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
No, Musdan, it does NOT say there is an exception. Here's what it says first:
Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article. Note: it may be best to prepare this in advance as summarising several pages of text and selecting a single image may not be a trivial task
After that, it says:
Add "{{Main|new article name}}" (use the order: image, main tag, text). If all the content of the section is being removed (e.g. in the case of a list) use the "See" template instead of the "Main" template. If necessary (where there is an image, but only a short paragraph of text) add "{{Clear}}" to the end. Use the edit summary "Material [[WP:SPLIT]] to [[New article name]]" and save the edit.
Right afterwards, it says:
Add a summary
One could argue whether or not lists are summaries, or what exactly should be stated in such summaries, but "see" links alone ARE NOT SUMMARIES. You misunderstood and/or overlooked the part where is says to have a summary. There should be something else in the section in addition to the "see" referral link. That would go against WP:Summary style to only have a referral link. Geraldo Perez stated on Talk:Selena Gomez#Discography that Sections in an any article shouldn't consist of just a lists of links unless it is a "See also" or "External links" section. He could perhaps give a better explaination of how to correctly WP:SPLIT, though I will grant that particular discussion linked was about using prose vs. using bulleted lists, and that comment didn't take into account that years had been listed along with albums. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking Filmography could have its own section if it was something like at Justin Timberlake#Awards and accolades. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
It could potentially be in prose, Joseph. Just not sure exactly how to phrase it if that were to be done. The Ringo Starr article gives a referral to his filmography page under "film career" section and has prose (though Ringo's article could perhaps have more than two paragraphs for it). Would anybody object to just having a referral link to filmography page under "film actor" section and not having a separate section, similar to the "Entertainment career" section in Ronald Reagan? Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You might be able to do that, but the reason Ringo Starr has it in his "film career" section because that is not the main part of his career. Williams acting is the main part of his career. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
That is true. On another note, I'm not sure why there are separate sectipns for Williams' TV, film, and theater work. They could probably be integrated into one "acting" section, with a referral link to filmography page in that section. Keep in mind there is a separate section for his comedy work. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't overlook anything. And if I misunderstood, then please explain the sentence that I've already quoted twice and you quoted and seemed to just ignore. One more time (and note the emphasis in italics), "If all the content of the section is being removed (e.g. in the case of a list) use the "See" template instead of the "Main" template." The preferred way is to have a summary (prose), but that's not the only way. And again, WP:Splitting is not a guideline -- so, in a way, we're wasting time by squabbling over it. Musdan77 (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
See WP:Summary style, which includes "A link such as "Main page: Wikipedia:Splitting", generated by the template {{Main|<name of child article>}}, is placed below the section heading of the summary in the main article." Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

*sigh* I know that! We all know that. You're still not addressing that sentence! That's when a summary is used. The word "instead" basically means there's an exception. Instead of ___, do ___, when/if you do ___ ("in the case of"). I don't know if I can explain it any better. Musdan77 (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The "instead" refers to what type of template to use, it is not saying to have nothing but a template in the section or that any template is exempt from summarizing. It wastes section headings to only have one link with nothing else inside (expect for a "See also" section, which contains links related to article, and can include subarticles), and isn't informative for readers. 21:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Why would two different templates (Main and Further information) be needed if both precede a section that must have content, as you assert? WWGB (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
"Main" is used when it is the primary focus of the section, "further information" or "see also" is used when additional related content can be found on a separate article, but is not the primary focus. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
"The 'instead' refers to what type of template to use". Yes -- and why do you think it says to use the "See" template?? It gives the reason in the sentence (which I'm not going to repeat again). You (erroneously) deal with one word, but you need to answer to the whole sentence -- which you haven't even come close to doing. Actually, if you can't then don't even bother responding -- because the bottom line is: WP:Splitting is not actually an MOS (it's an information page), and if an actual guideline doesn't say it then you can't emphatically say that something has to be done that way (that's why there's consensus). And, btw, you've also been 2-faced. On one hand you say that something should be done according to a certain page, but on the other hand you say things that aren't on that page (or any MOS -- or if it is, you don't say where). Musdan77 (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking into MOS, I see that MOS:BODY discourages really short sections/subsections (Quote: Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points), and a section with only a referral link would be extremely short. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The word "instead" does not mean exception, let's clear that up right now shall we;

- I will use margerine instead of butter
- It might snow instead of rain
- You may say someone contradicted themselves instead of calling them a 2-face

Now an exception would be "i before e except for when it's after c".

Currently I find that both the filmography and awards section are repetitive of each other and would better serve the article should they be merged into a table as I have indicated below.

Selected Filmography

Main article: Robin Williams filmography
Main article: List of awards and nominations received by Robin Williams
Year Nominated work Award Category Award Won Ref.
1979 Mork & Mindy Best Actor – Television Series Musical or Comedy Golden Globe [2]
1987 Carol, Carl, Whoopi and Robin Outstanding Performance in a Variety or Music Program Primetime Emmy [3]
1988 ABC Presents A Royal Gala Outstanding Performance in a Variety or Music Program Primetime Emmy [4]
1988 Good Morning, Vietnam Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy Golden Globe [2]
1991 Awakenings Best Actor (shared with Robert De Niro) National Board of Review
1992 Hook Favorite Movie Actor Kids' Choice
1992 The Fisher King Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy Golden Globe [2]
1993 Aladdin Special Award for Vocal Work Golden Globe [2]
1993 Aladdin Best Comedic Performance MTV Movie
1993 Aladdin Saturn Award for Best Supporting Actor Saturn [2]
1994 Mrs. Doubtfire Favorite Movie Actor Kids' Choice
1994 Mrs. Doubtfire Best Comedic Performance MTV Movie
1997 The Birdcage Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture Screen Actors Guild [5]
1998 Good Will Hunting Best Supporting Actor Academy [6]
1998 Good Will Hunting Cecil B. DeMille Screen Actors Guild [7]
2005 One Hour Photo Best Actor Saturn

I see no point in listing content he did not receive an award for --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that such a selective listing is extremely POV. Also, tables tend not to be used for filmography sections when there is a separate subarticle. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is POV, due to the films only being selected dues to amount of awards and critic reception. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.nia.nih.gov/alzheimers/publication/lewy-body-dementia/basics-lewy-body-dementia
  2. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference GoldenGlobes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "39th Primetime Emmys Nominees and Winners". Academy Of Television Arts & Sciences. Retrieved 15 September 2014.
  4. ^ "40th Primetime Emmys Nominees and Winners". Academy Of Television Arts & Sciences. Retrieved 15 September 2014.
  5. ^ "The 3rd Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards". SAG-AFTRA. Retrieved 22 August 2014.
  6. ^ "The 70th Academy Awards (1998) Nominees and Winners". Oscars. 23 March 1998. Retrieved 22 August 2014.
  7. ^ "The 4th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards". SAG-AFTRA. Retrieved 22 August 2014.

Filmography controversy

On his main page (not filmography article), I have an idea which films should be used, the ones listed on the lede of his filmography article. Those are ones he's better known for. Just a suggestion. Dpm12 18:23 19 December 2014

Not sure what it'll consist of (assuming it even stands as a separate section), but I'm still concerned about the POV of "selected filmography" being a section title. Following a similar structure of "entertainment career" in Ronald Reagan, it could be best to have a referral to filmography at the top of an "acting career" section, and merging television, film, and theatre into one acting section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: Ashley Tisdale doesn't have all of her filmography on her main page, just like Williams does now. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Night at the museum 3: Secret of the tomb

This was Robin Williams's last movie, released in December 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.78.170.209 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not all roles will be included in this article's filmography section. It is included in the Robin Williams filmography article, along with every other role Williams has had. Reach Out to the Truth 03:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hung vs Hanged

@Willondon and Stupid555: The usage not on hang at from Merriam Webster suggests that hung might be the more appropriate word choice in this case, as it was not a formal hanging:

"For both transitive and intransitive senses 1b the past and past participle hung, as well as hanged, is standard. Hanged is most appropriate for official executions <he was to be hanged, cut down whilst still alive … and his bowels torn out — Louis Allen> but hung is also used <gave orders that she should be hung — Peter Quennell>. Hung is more appropriate for less formal hangings <by morning I'll be hung in effigy — Ronald Reagan>." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hang. But this is definitely not my expertise. meamemg (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. The dictionary I consulted mentions 'hanged' in reference to an execution, which this was certainly not, or death by hanging. Even in cases of suicide, 'hanged' seems to be more common. Anyway, I'm happy to have "voted" once, and let other editors sort it out. I would not bet against 'hung' winning out over the next few decades of change in the language. Willondon (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Grammar error

Can't correct it myself because the article is locked, but this is basic grammar and should be fixed.

"...working with Woody Allen, who directed he and Billy Crystal..."

You would use the objective pronoun in that case.

Should be "...directed him and Billy Crystal..." 24.17.154.104 (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Light show (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2015

Your listing of Robin Williams' movies does not include "August Rush" (2007; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Rush). We loved that movie, and would hate for it to be forgotten among all of his hundreds of film-accomplishments! 206.195.188.253 (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

For the IP and the editor who responds to this the film is listed here Robin Williams filmography. MarnetteD|Talk 19:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. See the discussion above regarding what films should be included in the list on the main page, versus just on the Robin Williams filmography page. Let's establish consensus for adding August Rush before adding it to this list. meamemg (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

movies

The Angriest Man in Brooklyn, 2014 (2602:306:342E:7540:FC46:B2FD:B795:1C98 (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)) Sheila L Gray

It is listed at the Robin Williams filmography. MarnetteD|Talk 12:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I was just looking at his filmography and "The Angriest Man in Brooklyn" isn't on there. Lettich16 (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I just looked, and from the latest edit (March 11), it is there. Are you sure you're looking at the article Robin Williams filmography? That's different from the partial list of films in the Robin Williams article. Willondon (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I just saw a 1996 film called The Secret Agent. Williams plays a character named The Assassin. 70.45.167.43 (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC) prefix:Talk:Robin Williams/

Two more movies

Please add the other two Night at the Museum movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.166.232 (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robin_Williams/Archive_7&oldid=667843873"