Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:46, 21 September 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robin Williams article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. California: San Francisco Bay Area Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Comedy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. B-class review Extended content It is suitably referenced, with in-line citation: It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious holes: It has a defined structure: It is reasonably well-written: It contains supporting materials where appropriate: It presents its content in an appropriately understandable way: Overall Pass/Fail

Template:Vital article

A news item involving Robin Williams was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 12 August 2014.

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.--] (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)

, 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." 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 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 . WWGB (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

line "The Disposition date 8/12/14" (release of his body to crematorium.) "Scattering in San Francisco Bay off the cost of Marin County, Ca". The corner must put a date on line 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)

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 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 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:-

"] due to ]<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)

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

Survey

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

• No. She is notable, but this discussion has already taken place just a couple of weeks ago. Consensus was already reached and was based on the following: adding one name of a notable child would be confusing; adding all the children's names would clutter up the info box unnecessarily. If people want to know the names of Williams' children, they can read the article. After all, that is what we want people to do: read Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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, , is silly, IMO. --Light show (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/Marsha_Garces_Williams - --] (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please reread what I wrote, no person is named or maligned, my discussion is cogent and on-topic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You advocate publicizing "all children's names" yet that would be against Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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)

Threaded discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 (). -- 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 Misplaced Pages 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.--] (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. --] (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 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)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class California articles
• Mid-importance California articles
• B-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles
• High-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
• San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
• WikiProject California articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• High-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Chicago articles
• Mid-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• B-Class Comedy articles
• High-importance Comedy articles
• WikiProject Comedy articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment