Talk:Robin Williams/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Main page removal

Isn't it generally a widely agreed unspoken law in the educated world to not eulogize those who've departed on their own selfish accords? e.g. "those who've offed themselves"? No matter how famous and influential they are? In the news they generally don't report those who've caused their own demise, and celebrityhood shouldn't be an exception? Tandrum (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Define "selfish". HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been quiet for awhile now. I've criticized quite a few items on this page. But for anyone to say a 63 year old man who chose of his own volition, that the road ahead appeared to difficult or grim to continue after an already tedious painful journey, was "selfish" in his choice to no longer want to continue with life. Well, I certainly hope karma doesn't pay you a visit Sir, or you may just end up having an epiphany when it is far too late. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears to longer be true that suicide victims are shunned. we are much more open as a society in dealing wtih this and accepting this than decades earlier, for better or worse depending on ones religious convictions around suicide. considering that Robin HAS been eulogized extensively in the last 2 weeks is proof that the stigma of suicide is no longer present. therefore, we can safely reflect that eulogizing in the placement of his article on the main page, for an extended period based on his notability. "celebrtihood shouldnt be an exception" is your opinion, and is not reflected in the way he is being treated outside WP. If anyone can find a notable source condemning him for committing suicide, i suppose it can be added here, but i can be absolutely sure anyone who says something like that will be shunned themselves as unconscionably cruel, and that reaction would also be noted here necessarily(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The only reason that Williams death is still on the main page is that in our processes to determine what goes in the "In the News" box, there are several metrics that are to be met for a story to be listed (as to elevate it from just being a news ticker), and from the standpoint of what has transpired in the news, there has been little happening to displace it. This is extremely unusual, and in no way to meant to be taken that we are putting Williams' death on a pedestal in any way that could be read. This has sparked discussion of removing "death blurbs" as this is in a timely manner if they are not otherwise pushed off by normal practice. But in comments given by some over, please do not read the fact his death is still there as a sign WP is endorsing any viewpoint. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The REAL reason is that, despite many people seeing the problem, none of the people who think they own the Main page will ever allow the rules to change. HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Article is no longer "in the news"

How/who to contact to remove it from that section of the en-Wiki homepage to make room for other newsworthy issues? HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You're lookng for WP:ITN/C, and there is actually ongoing discussion about removing it. The problem is that the week has been "slow" for ITN news, the blurb would have normally fallen off with the addition of other news items. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as "slow" news, that's just dependent on how hard one looks.  :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The REAL problem is that those who behave as if the own ITN won't ever allow the rules to change. Lots of good stuff never makes it to ITN because of a rigid rule structure, and stuff that should be gone isn't, again because of a stupid rigid rule that it must stay. If rules are stupid, change them! HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Robin Williams son's name came from Final Fight

Robin Williams son's name came from Cody in Final Fight. I'm a huge gamer and have been for 28+ years. I've seen this at least a dozen times across many different gaming sites. I'd like to get the wiki changed from "He did not state which game he named his son Cody after.", to, "His son's name Cody came from the videogame Final Fight." As for proof or cite reasons, look at any and all videogame websites. R.I.P Mr. Williams, you will always be loved, and missed so very much.

Here is just one site where I found the info on Cody [1]

--Hedmunky84 (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)hedmunky84

Hedmunky84: I'm pretty certain Salon.com does not meet the reliability standards for sources in Wikipedia. If you can find a reliable, unbiased source that has the same info (and isn't a mirror site for salon.com), then the content can be included and the record changed re: the origins of Cody's naming. Maybe someone else can weigh in here re:salon.com and the source will be fine, but from first glance and having a recollection regarding the reliability of salon, I think it's not going to pass muster. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Salon's reliable, however, reading the article, the claim that Cody is from FF is from a forum post at a video game site. That makes this specific article inappropriate to source this fact. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

And doing a bit more searching, every source that makes this claim I can trace back to video game player speculation, making it very unreliable to include. We know Williams himself said Cody was named after a video game character, but we can't tell in reference to what. --MASEM (t) 18:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Salon produces more of a blog, really. The writers are not journalists, rather, biased bloggers. Just look at the number of blog articles they publish that are opinion based and biased politically without reliable sources to support. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That might be the case, but as we judge reliability based on editorial standards (Which they have), it's considered a reliable source in general. But like all reliable sources, there can be individual cases of an article having problems, like this specific case where they make the claim on Cody's name, based on what a video gamer posted on a random forum. Other parts of that article might be okay, but we can't use that for the claim here. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's irrelevant where the name came from. It's trivia, and the name itself doesn't even belong in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I had been starting to think the same: irrelevant trivia. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no issue with the names of the children, alone, as long as we know they were named by Williams or his wives in a public manner. In fact, I think calling that as trivia, as long as it is properly sourced, is underestimating that information - That's information we shouldn't be hiding. And the fact that Zelda's name is based on the game is important in noting Williams's interest in video games. But since we can't say much more about Cody's name beyond that we know that's what it is, that's all we should say. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a big issue with naming the kids. They deserve privacy. We don't have to feed the excitement of gaming geeks at the expense of Williams' kis. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If Williams's never gave the name of his kids in a published interview or statement, then I 100% agree, it is a privacy issue even if reliable third-parties gave the name. But if Williams gave the names himself willingly, then there's no expectation of privacy anymore. (And add to the fact that part of why Zelda Williams is notable beyond her own notability is her father). --MASEM (t) 22:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes and no. WP:BLPNAME and discussion surrounding the same has usually come down on the side of opting for privacy with non-notable minor children. It's my understanding that all of Williams' children are adults. Zelda is the only one with her own notability. Even so, I like to err on the side of privacy, although in this case with the kids being adults, it would be a hard sell with a number of editors, I imagine. But as far as trivia goes, I think the naming thing is taking it a bit far and into the realm if unimportant trivia. The question to ask is: does it truly enhance the article and further the reader's understanding of the article subject? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason for Williams naming Zelda that way (an unusual name, and one commonly connected with the game series) pretty much begs that we need to address that point, and it helps it is well sourced and actually something of influence (his ad work for Nintendo). On the other hand, without 100% affirmation of why Cody, we don't need to mention it there (even if we know that Williams said there was a video game influence). --MASEM (t) 22:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

People who write about Wikipedia's systemic bias describe the typical Wikipedian as a young adult male interested in computers. Boy, it's showing here. Try to see this article from the perspective of someone from a different demographic, someone who couldn't give a damn about computer games. That's the vast majority of our readership. Gamers must not own this article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

We have one single paragraph how, as atypical as it would be, Williams was an avid gamer and spoke positively of it. No one is demanding a full-fledged section about it, but there is definitely media interest in that video game field. I agree that earlier, some of the details of the video game aspects were far too deep and reflected the above average wpian editor, but a few sentences about it make a lot of sense when it is part of the coverage he got, and specifically how he named his daughter. --MASEM (t) 23:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the worst aspects of systemic bias is when those who are part of it don't recognise that fact. I really feel that your response ignored the first four sentences in my five sentence paragraph. HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I read it and addressed it - I agree that WP can trend towards the bias towards whats interesting for young adult males, and we need to work against that. And I pointed out that this article had a problem before with too much detail on his interest in video games ignoring his other factors, which I and others have edited down. But to completely ignore the fact he was an avid gamer and named his child after a video game is the other side of systematic bias; video games are now influential in society just as films and televisions are. Balance, not elimination. --MASEM (t) 00:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Almost everybody everywhere watches films and television. Only a small minority, in a subset of the advanced world, regularly play computer games. I can see that you don't have the same perspective as most of our readers. Can you see that too? HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

40 years ago, very few people watched television; 60 years ago, very few people watched movies. You're showing bias towards modern media that fortunately reliable source today recognize as a viable entertainment outlet. --MASEM (t) 01:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a viable entertainment outlet, but minor on a global scale. I can see that we will never agree on this. Can you accept even THAT? I note from your user page that you run a gaming blog. That's terrific, but do you know many people who never read your blog? HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not that naive, I don't expect anyone to read it. But I do expect that editors that don't ever play video games to understand it is not some tiny fringe thing, as it is a multi-billion dollar industry. It is "new media". It might be niche presently, but far from a passing fad. As such, if third-party reliable sources discuss a person's strong interest in those areas, we don't outright ignore because it is "niche", since that is ignoring the representation from those sources. No one is asking for twenty paragraphs on how Williams played video games, what is being said is that a few sentences (as it is now) that mention Williams interest in video games and how that is reflected in the naming of her daughter is completely inline with all WP polices and is a fair representation of the sourcing about this aspect. We cannot be luddites in writing on modern topics. --MASEM (t) 01:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I was never asking for that. And you really need to be more careful with your assumptions about people who disagree with you. HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't the issue be resolved by bringing the link (pun intended) of how Zelda was named to her own page. Instead of craming everything in here, some information may be better suited for other pages.--[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Noting's being crammed in, we're still okay on space, and it's actually already in the article. And no, it would be appropriate here, as why Zelda's named has nothing to do with her own actions; it's about Williams' choice. Basically, nothing needs to be changed at this point, the point about her naming stemming from Williams's interest in video games is in a single paragraph and thus reasonably weighted to the many many paragraphs we have about his standup, television, and film career. To HiLo, you were acting as if having anything about video games on this page was a bad thing; I agree there is an appropriate balance with the understanding that it could easily be biased with too much video game which starts getting into trival matters. --MASEM (t) 03:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Whenever someone with whom I'm debating misrepresents my argument, I feel more certain that I am correct. HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever works, but there should be more of that topic on Zelda's page then Robin's, it is her name, and if you watch the video they made together there was a rime she wanted to change it but learned to embrace the name. I'm all for a mention of the reason why she was named Zelda being added in here, just don't forget to add it in as much or more detail over there as well. Would you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slave28 (talk • contribs)

I completely agree that her wanting to change the name and learning to embrace it should be on her page, not Robin's. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You know what MASEM? You, as someone obsessed with gaming, effectively have a conflict of interest when it comes to judging how much comment on computer gaming should appear in this article. You are simply not in a position to objectively judge the significance of this stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I see a fight brewing, and am not going to sit by and watch it explode over something as stupid as this. HiLo48, your comments most definitely lack the good faith editors are supposed to exhibit. You're making an accusation that, in my opinion, lacks basis in fact. So far, I haven't seen anything that would indicate Masem is doing anything that would equate a conflict of interest in regard to his editing of the article. Further, you are playing very fast and loose with the true nature of conflict of interest, and frankly, I just don't see where COI is at play here. You're making a pretty serious accusation that seems more like a childish threat than anything else; borne out of being ticked off as a result of yesterday's exchange (seen in this section, above). My advice to you is: back off. Quickly. And to leave this alone before where you're attempting to take this backfires on you in a big way. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I made no threat, but you certainly did. HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I will have to agree with HiLo48 on both counts, that Masem does have a COI in regards to the video game aspect considering the amount of work he has done in regards to video games (don't take that as a negative Masem, you have done a great deal of good work on numerous video game pages) and that a threat was made against HiLo48 by Winkelvi as she has made an similar threat against me when I was also debating issues regarding this article. "I'm advising you to back off and change your tone and attitude or the way this is starting to go will not end well for you" (sound familiar). The fact that Masem never fully responded to either of my suggestions shows a COI. Winkelvi, if an editor has an issue with another editor, there are ways for them to deal with it on their own. You should not make loose ended threats against editors, for the simple reason that they can be misinterpreted and get you into a whole heap load of trouble. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, I responded to both your suggestions. This is very much becoming bad faith on my intentions, and while calling out COI on a person is not a personal attack, it is quickly approaching that. My interest in retaining the video game information is that 1) it is factually called out by non-video game related third party reliable sources and 2) a key fact of that video game aspect is the public revelation that Zelda Williams is named after a video game character. I'm all for keeping the balance and making sure Williams' interest in video games is not more than a paragraph in balance to everything else, but statements by hilo48 suggest (without saying it) eliminated it all together because "video games are niche", which is flat out wrong. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

-You misunderstood Masem, I did say not fully answered ... and I also made it perfectly clear to not take it the wrong way. My issue was that I wanted to make sure you gave equal weight to both this and Zelda's article if you were going to play the "named on a video game" angle. On this you did not reply. No personal attack, just brining up a point. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

And that's absolute bullshit! I didn't say that because it was never my goal. You have misrepresented my position several times already, and made appallingly wrong assumptions about me and my background. Your claimed compromise position on this is a very rigid, POV driven one. You made statements suggesting that playing video games was equivalent globally to watching movies and TV. That's absolute nonsense and reveals your complete lack of perspective on this matter. I have a favourite football team. I avoid editing on it because I'm not sure I could remove my irrational obsession with that team from my efforts when contributing. Can you see a parallel? HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The concept of COI has a very specific meaning/application on WP. If you were someone that has significant financial gain in that football team, such as being an owner, coach, or player of that team, then you editing the article about that team is COI, plain and simple. But if all you have is a fan interest in the team, you are completely free to edit that article to your heart's content as long as you're otherwise staying in all other policies. I assume most of us are editing this article because we have interest in Robin Williams, and so we're not doing any COI editing for that. So just becuase I enjoy video games and edit video game articles does not mean asking for a completely reasonable inclusion of Williams's noted interest in video games is absolutely not a COI issue on WP. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

And please let us not bring up the literal definition of what anything means on Wikipedia because whenever I did you all chased me out of Dodge. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I leave for a few hours and what do I find when I return? The boomeranging mess I predicted for HiLo and he's now joined by someone else taking him down the boomerang road, hand-in-hand. But since you both are now taking personal attack potshots and are both exercising bad faith, perhaps you tell me exactly what threat I made in this thread, huh? Because, if either of you pulled your heads out of your anger-charged me-me-me behinds, you'd realize there was no threat, only a "prophecy" of sorts: one that you are both fulfilling by continuing this ridiculous, bad-faith filled waste of time slinging monkey shit at Masem for no good reason. Now, could we please abandon this corrupted waste of time and space talk page "discussion" and get back to the business of building an encyclopedia? Gawd. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

So, you support MASEM's repeated misrepresentation of my position? That's good faith editing? What bullshit! HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I support stopping this insane, childish argument and your baseless accusations against Masem. I support actually building an encyclopedia and discussing matters and ideas that are helpful and productive. You continuing this stupidity does none of that. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried that, you decided to go and make threats, don't complain when two like minded editors who actually think more highly of common sense come and join forces and you no longer get your way bullying people around. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What I see is two editors banding together to work toward a civility warning or block. Hopefully you'll see because I'm not an admin and really have no weight to throw around when it comes to warnings and blocks that this isn't a threat, either. I'm just stating the facts of what I see behavior-wise from both of you and what I've seen happen to editors who go down the path both of you are when said editors refuse to drop the stick even though the horse is way beyond dead. Consider this friendly advice. Please, enough already. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to the banding that has been ongoing since the passing of this celebrity. Beating a dead horse beyond beaten on the talk pages and threatening editors on the talk pages are two different things. One is stating a point will be made abundantly clear on the talk pages. Yours has been pretty clear since you made the almost exact same threat, to a more experienced editor. The problem we are having here is this article has been edited by the same group with no input from anyone else, always voted down no matter how much sense it made. Even if it meant adding the stupidest thing. And again, you are making assumptions ... let me make one. The minute you typed Gawd at the end of your comment, I knew exactly what kind of person I was dealing with. Once more I am done with your shenanigans, moving on. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Death

Suggest death be moved as a subsection of Personal life as opposed to a section of it's own. Death is the last chapter of a person's life so it only makes sense that it should be the last section of Personal life. Tributes should be a sub-subsection of the death subsection. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Noted deaths are nearly always given a separate section, following by a top level section on legacy. Standard practice on WP. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I hear you Masem ... in most cases I would be in 100% agreement, if the section had any meat, but we are barley talking 3 lines of text here, the tribute is what's given it size and even that was hotly debated as whether it should be there or not. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Because we are waiting on the official toxicology report, which might have more to say on what physiologically was happening with Williams before he committed suicide. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Masem on this. Wikipedia articles grow in content and change with new information. This one is no different. There is no deadline in Wikipedia. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Was a suggestion ... now, should my suspicions be correct, and not much more comes out of all this, does it not make sense for deaths with little write up to be moved to the Personal life section (not that I see this happening here as it is still prominent in the news, I just don't see a reason for a section if it has no foundation, like a murder that took a long time to solve where there are paragraphs of information). --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If it is the case that what is there is basically all that can be said on the death itself, then that's a reasonable step. I just have a feeling we're going to be getting a lot of details (to balance into coverage) into the article once the report is out. --MASEM (t) 02:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Well at least the editing part of it will be in good hands, we can revisit this at a more appropriate time. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Bullets for separate tributes

A list of separate events, consolidated into a single paragraph per this edit, is harder to read than a bulleted list in Robin_Williams#Tributes. This really isn't good paragraph structure. --Light show (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• We prefer paragraph prose over bulleted lists, in general. There might be a better way to organize all the information but it is not disjointed enough to require bulletted lists. --MASEM (t) 06:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Original music tribute

Related to tributes, I added this one with link, which was deleted with rationale: there are numerous video tributes, what makes this one any different?)

• Musician and composer John Boswell, of Symphony of Science music series, created a music video as a tribute to Williams. [2]

I believe this kind of edit should have been discussed before deleting since it's based on a question. In answer to the question, this was an original composition, fully copyrighted, and compositions by Symphony of Science are sold on Amazon and by Colorpulse. The other video tributes referred to are simple scene compilations and lacked the original music and creativity behind this one. I think this one deserves to be included. --Light show (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

As was indicated in the comment by the editor that removed it (not me but I was about to), there's been dozens to hundreds of tributes to Williams, and we are in no place to document them all. We should only document the ones that have received attentions by third-party, ideally secondary sources. So a youtube vid of the artist's original source is not going to cut it. --MASEM (t) 06:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining. --Light show (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Terry Gross's interview with Robin Willams (2006)

It's here:[3]. Actual mp3 here[4] When asked a question about therapy, he says one of the responses in got from a suicide hotline is "Life is not for everybody". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parabolooidal (talk • contribs)

Article was vandalized re: Williams' adopted hometown in Marin County on 31 December 2010, fixing shortly with citation to reliable source

Found it. The article was vandalized on 31 December 2010 before semi-protection had been imposed and no one ever caught it. I suspect the few articles since then that have claimed he grew up in Woodacre were probably based on the vandalized version of the article. Google Books directed me to a New York magazine cover story on Williams in 1993, based on an interview with him, that reported he grew up in Tiburon. I am adding that shortly. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the Tiburon/Woodacre portion of your edit, Coolcaesar. There are numerous recent, reliable sources that state the Williams family relocated to Woodacre, with no mention of Tiburon until later in Williams' life. Additionally, how you rewrote this change was most definitely POV, non-encyclopedic, and editorializing in nature ("...his father finally became fed up with the declining quality of American automobiles). The following is a sampling of links to sources supporting the family living in Woodacre are as follows: [5], [6], [7], [8]. Let's discuss, please. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And every source you cited is apparently an article written after the fact (i.e., after Williams' death and by journalists who apparently hadn't met him personally and conducted a lengthy interview). Anyone who's worked in journalism knows that journalists often flub minor details when they're trying to meet publication deadlines, and sometimes the editor is too busy copyediting on grammar and style to catch minor factual errors. So there's a risk that the earlier vandalism I noted above may have been copied and no one bothered to double-check it. There have been several articles in the past two years about people vandalizing other Wikipedia articles (not this one in particular) and then some other person repeats what the article says as fact and then it takes months or years to correct the distortion. From a historical perspective, the only way to be sure about this is to look at contemporaneous sources written when Williams was still alive, preferably based on interviews with him directly, like the article I cited.

If you had actually bothered to CLICK on the damn link and read the article cited, you would see that it expressly states that (1) Williams' father took early retirement from Ford because he was "tired of the declining standards of the automobile business" (keep in mind that the U.S. automobile industry was continually roasted in the press from 1965 onward thanks to Unsafe At Any Speed) and (2) he then relocated his family to Tiburon. You would also see that the article (a cover story in New York magazine) is based on interviews with Williams himself, Williams' mom, and many of his colleagues and friends at the peak of his career in 1993, when he was about to move into his then-new residence in Sea Cliff with his second wife. So I was accurately paraphrasing the article. But you couldn't care less. Instead, you reverted a properly sourced edit which you characterized as my "editorializing."

In any case, if you search on "Robin Williams Tiburon" on Google Books, it's clear that there were several magazine articles published in the 1970s and 1980s that apparently mention he relocated to Tiburon, but none of them are publicly available on the open Web. The next time I'm at a public library I'll have to go into the deep Web (InfoTrac, ProQuest, etc.) and see if I can view full text. Also, as another editor pointed out earlier (check the archives for this Talk page), it would make no sense for Williams to live in Woodacre and commute to Redwood High School when Sir Francis Drake High School is much closer (look at Google Maps). If he lived in Tiburon, then it makes perfect sense because Tiburon is within Redwood High's attendance area. (Tamalpais High is closer, but its attendance area doesn't include Tiburon.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

First, you seriously need to calm down and adopt a civil tone. We're discussing, this isn't a battleground. Being defensive and sounding hostile isn't helpful at all.

Next, If you aren't already familiar with it, please read WP:VERIFY. We include what can be verified and the sources clearly verify Woodacre, nothing about Tiburon. The conclusions you and the other editor are drawing based on proximity to Redwood High equate synthesis and original research. We can't include content based on either.

Additionally, we aren't here to editorialize in articles nor should we be paraphrasing sources and including that paraphrasing as content. The paraphrasing you included definitely took on a tone of POV. No can do. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I know WP policies and guidelines (and the MoS) far better than you do, having actually assisted in the prosecution of an editor through the entire ADR and ArbCom process to a permanent ban. Second, you need to actually read the article that I cited and for which I provided a link. Your refusal to read the New York magazine article that expressly states Williams lived in Tiburon and present a coherent reason for why that's not a reliable source is either gross negligence or bad faith on your part. You have zero credibility when you fail to engage the sources cited by other editors and make the false statement that "the sources clearly verify Woodacre, nothing about Tiburon." Only your sources state Woodacre, but you haven't rebutted my point that they are post-mortem and aren't based on direct interviews with Williams, while the source I cited clearly is based on direct interviews with Williams, his second wife, and his friends and family. I sincerely hope for your sake that you are not deliberately trolling (i.e., taking obviously unreasonable positions) just for the sick thrill of getting a rise out of other editors. That, I assure you, will get you banned from all Wikimedia Foundation projects in short order. Permanently.

Third, as illustrated above, my paraphrasing was clearly within the boundaries of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing (as I presented above both the original quote and the paraphrase). The paraphrasing accurately states Williams' father's disillusionment with the automobile industry as stated in the New York article. If you are trying to take the ridiculous position that Wikipedia should be nothing more than a compilation of straight quotations, there is already a Wikimedia Foundation project for that. It's called Wikiquote. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"That, I assure you, will get you banned from all Wikimedia Foundation projects in short order. Permanently." Thanks for the biggest laugh I've had all week. Your threats, accusations, and wiki-lawyering say it all in regard to the kind of editor you are. Let's just say I'm neither impressed nor am I intimidated. I stand by my comments regarding Woodacre vs. Tiburon along with your use of synthesis and original research and editorializing/use of POV. The number of sources stating Woodacre (as opposed to one for Tiburon), at this point, make the case for Woodacre. Verifiability over truth. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"Biggest laugh I've had all week." Keep talking, more rope to hang yourself with.

Also, have you read the article yet? Yes or no. Simple question. If your reply is no, or you evade the question again for the third time, then we know you're just trolling.

Also, let's flip this on you. If you're contending that my paraphrase is POV, then let's just quote the article itself. Since after all, Jesse Kornbluth in the article did actually write that Williams' father took early retirement from Ford Motor because he was "tired of the declining standards of the automobile business." So what's wrong with a direct quote? It is from a neutral, verifiable, reliable source available both on Google Books and in numerous public and academic libraries. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2014

No mention here of "World's Greatest Dad" (2009) in RW's filmography. 68.40.184.52 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and  Done, as it is a much more critical success compared to Jacob the Liar which I removed. However, we should be avoiding adding any more films here since we do have the filmography page that details the full list. --MASEM (t) 19:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are there still so many long quotes in this article?

Why is there a long box quote by someone describing his impression of Williams on stage? Why are there still block quotes in the article? I thought there was a consensus for fewer long quotes. It feels to me like someone who has their own idea about what "celebrity Wikipedia articles" should look like went full-force on the quote-adding, but that style doesn't jive with how Wikipedia biographical articles are constructed. The box quote is particularly egregious. Why does the long-winded opinion/impression of Andy de la Tour (I'm pretty knowledgeable, and I have never heard of him) relevant enough to be included in a biographical article on someone with whom he didn't have a close connection? Thoughts? Moncrief (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked this same question last week when the long quote in the quote box was added. This came after there had been consensus for removing the building quote farm cluttering up the article. Glad you were bold, Moncrief. It needed to be done. 100% support for this. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Reading the whole article again, it's disheartening how many quotes there are -- short, long, constant quotes. The article is arguably no longer NPOV. So many unnecessary laudatory quotes stuffed in here, possibly appropriate if this were a tribute article in a pop-culture magazine written by a particularly unimaginative person who constantly needs to rely on 3rd-party quotes, but not up to, or in the model of, a good Wikipedia article. Not sure I'm up to task of doing much about it though.... too overwhelming. Moncrief (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

In response to the removal of the Andy de la Tour quote, I agree it was long, which is why it fit better in an isolated quote box instead of in-line, so readers had a choice of reading or skipping it. Personally, I don't care if it's in or out, although I feel it does add some valuable information that the article lacks, namely an honest reaction from a UK comedian who never heard of Williams, and therefore allowed him to go on stage before him to "warm up" the audience. de la Tour wrote:

I'll come clean, I have a small confession to make about 'drop-ins'. I'm still smarting from an experiance of thirty years ago. I was a regular at The Comedy Store in London within a few months of its opening. If I could, I liked to go on first or second after the interval, the audience would be well warmed up without being too pissed to care. One Saturday night, during the interval, Alexei Sayle, the regular host, asked if I wouldn't mind if he put on another act just before me — a visiting American actor who wanted to do a brief ten-minute set. As I'd never heard of the guy, who was in some obscure US children's TV series apparently, I generously agreed. Privately of course I'm thinking, 'Well how funny can a guy in a kids' TV series be in any case?' So Alexei goes onstage and asks the audience to put their hands together for the next act, a visiting American actor who he's sure we're all going to enjoy, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Robin Williams.

The deleted quote from the article:

"Forty minutes later Robin Williams walked off the stage. The audience was a spent force. They were laughed out. They weren't going to laugh at anyone else probably for a year. They were draped over the chairs in a state of total exhaustion. Williams had given us a comic exhibition of such energy and imagination that "tour de force" doesn't come close. Alexei and I and the other comedians had stood in the wings, slack-jawed, struggling to absorb the realisation that stand-up comedy could reach such heights. I have never seen before or since an act that so totally overwhelmed the senses that you prayed for mercy as you screamed with laughter."

Therefore, the statement that was first deleted, that said " he was a relatively unknown US TV actor," is true. The next deletion removed the whole sentence, which then put the de la Tour quote without context. The rationale for removing it was, This sort of thing happened innumerable times-- he was already a comedy legend by then. Notability of this in incident is entirely unclear. But that rationale skips over the fact that in the UK he was not a comedy legend, and did not do such drop-ins innumerable times. The incident does not need independent notability, just contextual and reliably sourced commentary which improves the bio. Therefore, the rationale for subsequently deleting the entire quote, "this long quote has no context," becomes a self-fulfilling edit, as the same editor first removed the context.

In light of the fact that the only other link-sourced material which covered his UK appearances is this one, de la Tour's comments are a good counter-balancing bit of commentary. I guess someone else might try to paraphrase the incident, but when a clear sourced quote can be used in context, it helps make WP itself a more reliable source, which it will never be with 4th-person-unknown editors preferring dry and sterile commentary. --Light show (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally, and not just because we simply don't need yet another quote about Williams, I think that another anecdote about Williams' brilliance and genius and spontaneity and incredibleness as a comedian would be giving undue weight. We all loved the guy, it's horribly sad that we have lost him so early and in the manner in which he was lost, but really. Is this quote going to enhance the reader's understanding about how awesome Robin Williams was? There's already so much there that paints the picture of awesomeness that it just simply isn't necessary. The readership understands from what's already there that he was a one-of-a-kind comic genius. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Zero weight can never be undue, IMO. In the entire Stand-up comedy section, there is nothing even close to a picture of awesomeness. --Light show (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

A picture of awesomeness? Sigh. It is not our job to "paint a picture of awesomeness" of any subject. Are you familiar with the NPOV guidelines of Wikipedia editing? Moncrief (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Those were your words, not mine: "There's already so much there that paints the picture of awesomeness . . ." Yet there is or was nothing remotely close to that, so waving the NPOV guideline flag as if it was relevant is very odd. If you assume that de la Tour's opinion was not neutral, good luck proving that. --Light show (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No, those were not my words. Moncrief (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. --Light show (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Before this goes any further over my choice of using the words "picture of awesomeness" and continuing to accuse of POV, please put on your rational hat and read the following: It was a turn of phrase used to describe what the reader will see, a conclusion they will come to on their own by reading the article. It wasn't meant to describe insertion of POV into the article. Put it into context and hopefully my meaning will be clear: "Is this quote going to enhance the reader's understanding about how awesome Robin Williams was? There's already so much there that paints the picture of awesomeness that it just simply isn't necessary. The readership understands from what's already there that he was a one-of-a-kind comic genius." Hopefully that helps and we can get back to the actual discussion. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, we're not writing a commercial biography which would certainly be aimed to highlight the best of his career, but a neutral overview of Williams's life. That means a full quote or two to explain how he was at stand-up is fine, but not 3 or more; instead we can summarize more pulling key words or phrases out of the quoted text to cut down the weight of quotes. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There are no quotes describing how he was at stand-up. Are we talking about the same article? --Light show (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Light Show, everyone but you agrees that we need fewer quotes in the article entire. The quote and quote box are out. Sorry. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Again with the quotes? We desperately need fewer quotes, not more. Therefore no more should be added, and many of the ones we have should be summarised or just removed. There's apparently a fundamental problem here with one editor's understanding of how we work. --John (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree. The multiple quotes add nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox rules for location linking

My edits to Williams' places of birth and death in his infobox, which included linking to Chicago and Illinois separately and abbreviating United States to U.S. with a link to the United States article, have been reverted because "we spell United States out the first time" instead of abbreviating it and "Chicago, Illinois should be one link". Can someone send me to the page where these rules are outlined? I'd like to know more because I've edited hundreds of infoboxes with the same edits I made to this one, including ones where I changed "Chicago, Illinois" to "Chicago, Illinois" and abbreviated "United States" to "U.S.", and was thanked for them. I previously edited locations in infoboxes to be one link, just as I have been told to do here, and they were reverted for being against the rules, so I'm confused. Cheers. -- MisterMorton (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a complete answer, but there is WP:OVERLINK: "the following are not usually linked: ... the names of major geographic features and locations". This suggests to me that Illinois, and possibly Chicago, do not need linking as most readers would be familiar with them. WWGB (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It's okay to link Chicago as his birthplace in the infobox, as the city is a germaine link, but not Illinois or the US, as the state/country is much much less germaine, and the link to the state will be on the Chicago article if someone really needs that. In the body, we should not be linking at all to Chicago or other well known cities per OVERLINK. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

MisterMorton has good reason to question why his edit was reverted. His edit to the infobox seems quite logical as not everyone who reads Wikipedia resides in the United States and may have knowledge that Chicago and Illinois are linked. Clicking the Chicago link does not show you Illinois you must look for it and vice versa for the latter. WP:OVERLINK not only clarifies this but also supports its use with the following line of text: Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.

As for abbreviating to U.S. most everyone abbreviates that around the world, same as U.K. and in the past with U.S.S.R. so I see no issue there. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The practice of linking I describe is standard because we assume that our readership knows the major countries and cities of the world. Note that "California" in the death location is not linked to California but to the city as well, for the same reason. Illinios is in the second sentence and in the infobox of Chicago so it is not a hidden like, and the state of Illinios has very little revelance to Williams. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

So you assume on behalf of planet Earth that you know who the readership is and that they have knowledge of all the major countries and cities of the world. Well I think I was specifically discussing the issues of the state of Illinois now wasn't I and I doubt the world readers are very keen on knowing your 52 states, hell you guys can barely quote a fraction of our provinces. And since the infobox is what first appears on mobile phones, maybe splitting Chicago and Illinois is better for the reader as opposed the editor. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

We have to make an assumption about the average education of the readership to set our level of writing as well to when certain facts have to be explained, and for this we have chosen to assume that the reader is a high-school/secondary educated person. This also means that the major cities of the world should be well recognized from a comparable geography education. We aren't expecting the readers to know the US states, but they find this out by linking through Chicago. Like other aspects of the infobox, this is a standardized practice across WP at WP:MOSLINK, so if you want to argue for change, that's the place to do it. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You must think we are some kind of stupid to keep falling for your end-runs on every comment that contradicts you. Keep spinning that yarn of yours, your constant deflection to WP links that validate other editors points only helps our cases. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

From my experience (editing and reading MOS), I find that cities and states can be linked separately in the infobox, but need to be together in prose. I can't say right now where it's located in MOS -- it doesn't specifically say that, as I recall, but that's the gist. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been in enough discussions that include those that have fashioned the MOSLINK and I'm pretty confident that we don't chain link (eg linking city, state, and country separately all next to each other) in the infobox, as this is how MOSLINK presents itself. A person that happens to need the state given a city link should be able to click through the city article to get that (or at worst, type it in). I've never seen cases in site-wide MOS/guideline/policy for this. --MASEM (t) 05:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Masem is right. --John (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Filmography section title

I think the movie Patch Adams(1997) was one of his best roles for which he one a golden globe for best comedic actor. This should be listed as one of his high lights. Since the Filmography section is actually a list of his best-known works, and the complete filmography is a separate article, isn't the section more accurately titled "Selected Filmography" or maybe even "Selected Works" since his comedy albums are briefly mentioned?

Someone who reads the section quickly (possibly thereby skipping over the link) might incorrectly assume it to be complete.

Consensus, please? Thank you, all!1980fast (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead para on that section is clear it is a partial one, and the complete number (100-something) is also there. We cannot take "responsibility" if a person scans an article and comes away with the wrong conclusion if we have written out that it was a partial list. Further, for a reader looking for the filmography, they will see that title in the TOC, and know they can jump straight to it to find more (and thus find the link to the full one); with a different name, the use of that section may not be obvious. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Spouses

With the word "divorced" prominent next to Williams' first two wives, Valerie Velardi & Marsha Garces, would the word "widowed" not be more appropriate then the current use of "his death" for Susan Schneider in the infobox? --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It certainly would, but some here want to follow some nonsensical convention from elsewhere. I tried to debate this earlier, to no avail. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried to have that ridiculous "his death" thing removed for something more in line with the English language but it fell on deaf ears. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have just changed it to "widowed". HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Common sense change is more then accurate. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, User:Winkelvi didn't think so. He reverted. I'd love him to come here and explain. To me it's just very ugly English. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It should either remain as it is now ("his death") or only contain the years they were together. The infobox is about Williams, not Williams' wives or their life/marriage status. "Widowed" (or whatever it was) gives undue weight. Further, "his/her death" is common practice in Wikipedia !article infoboxes. Examples are the articles on Robert Goulet and Liam Neeson. I have seen many others as well. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If you only leave the years it could imply a divorce, that is why widowed is necessary, besides the fact "his death" is the most idiotic use of the English language which quite frankly, of all people editing on this page, you were the last person I expected changing that. You argument for undue weight would go to his other wives as well, remove divorced. Seriously, do you not see the logic in this. And if there is an edit war brewing I did not start it. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi - Much of your post can be negated with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It says we don't include something here just because there's other nonsense like it elsewhere. I really can't see most readers feeling comfortable with "his death". I couldn't even see a meaning in it initially. I'm guessing it's meant to be some sort of an abbreviation explaining that the marriage was terminated by "his death". But it didn't work for me, or obviously for Slave28. HiLo48 (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid for deletion, but not when talking about standard approaches to handle the formatting of an infobox which is supposed to be normalized. If is is standard practice to do it a certain way, we do it that way. --MASEM (t) 04:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

And we should all keep using fossil fuel because that's what we've been doing for as long as we can remember and we just can't be bothered to come up with something better. Come one Masem, you're smarter then that, I know it from reading most of your edits so don't use that excuse. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I learnt at a very early stage of my adult life that "We've always done it that way" is a very poor reason to keep doing something dumb. The entry makes little sense. HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Evolution is the key to survival ... for all things, living or not. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Standardization avoids edit wars, not unlike the one this page had earlier. If you want to challenge the standardization of the infobox, this page is not the place to make the case for it, you do it at {{Infobox person}}, or perhaps at a place like WP:VPP. But not here. --MASEM (t) 05:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Would we have your support? At this stage your only opposition seems to be based on the "rule". What do you actually think? HiLo48 (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't promise my support, only in that you are completely in the right to take your case to these other pages to try to argue why your way might be better. My point is that you don't use a very visible, highly visited page, to "submarine" through desired changes to established guidelines on how these standardized templates should be used. --MASEM (t) 06:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think you'd have the courage to come out from behind a silly rule. Please grow an opinion of your own. You have plenty when it suits you. HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Were you not just as guilty Masem of challenging standardization of the Infobox with the children parameter. You are splitting hairs here. If we thought changing one word here in lieu of two was better, then that followed suit to every other page for the same reason, your standardization argument holds no ground. Once again you focus on what you want and not the bigger picture which is to make Wikipedia a better website and encyclopedia. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WP works by consensus, not by what you might think is best. Standardization is something done by consensus, particularly for infoboxes, and so if you think you have a better to offer on how to present information that would be standardized, there are routes to take for that. If that idea is accepted by concensus, then I'm all for going with it. At this microcosm of this single page, I don't think the change you're seeking is a good idea, but I'm one person, that's not consensus. That's why I can't support the change at the point, but I can support the proper effort to convince consensus to take that change. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I will add WP:FIVEPILLARS to that. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

His death is better because it is unambiguous. Widowed makes it unclear whether it is his death or hers that ended the marriage (in some cases a person and their spouse die during the same year). Readers should be able to quickly determine the years of marriages and how they ended (divorce, subject's death, spouse's death) without having to read the Personal life section. Jim Michael (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that something that's really bad English can be unambiguous. It's not even a sentence. English has grammar rules for a reason. HiLo48 (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia also has "rules" (and standards) for a reason. You're continuing to argue something that should be argued elsewhere (as has already been pointed out to you). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop avoiding discussion. Do you actually have an opinion on how this article looks? Or will you just accept that a dumb rule can make it look stupid? Maybe this is the highest profile article where this stupid policy has had an impact. Change always has to start somewhere. Stop blocking it a shallow appeal to a rule that others obviously find stupid. Develop an opinion of your own. HiLo48 (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Considering your behavior and comments at this article's talk page makes it easy to understand why you've been warned and blocked so often for personal attacks and incivility.

I have an opinion. I've already expressed it. Sorry you missed it. Perhaps you should look again. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I showed your opinion to be flawed, and you ran back and hid behind a stupid rule. Now you need to develop a new opinion, rather than discussing me. Why make this article look silly? HiLo48 (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No you didn't, no I don't, and I'm not. Until you come up with something new and worthwhile to discuss in regard to this now dead topic, I'm done commenting on it. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah well, you resorted to several of the worst debating tactics, and are now quitting. That reinforces my views on the article content quite well. Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

As with the infobox information about the other two marriages, it's not meant to be a sentence, so it doesn't have to follow rules on grammar etc. It's infobox information presented in a way to give basic information in a small space. I think it easy for the reader to determine what it means. In comparison, widowed is ambiguous as to whether it was the subject or the spouse who was widowed. This ambiguity doesn't arise with divorced, because the husband and wife divorce at the same time. Jim Michael (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly - when it comes to sentence fragments, the grammar is not an issue and instead we're looking for clarity of language. As pointed out above, "widowed" is not immediately clear (since it could apple to either side of the marriage), while "his death" established that, at the time he died, she was still alive. --MASEM (t) 19:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Jim - at least two of us have said we didn't think it was "easy". A verb (divorced) can work as an abbreviation, whereas "his death" (whatever part of English that is!) doesn't work well at all. One of our fundamental rules is that we write as well as we can. HiLo48 (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should continue stating the marriage details as they are because that's they way we've done it for years. It's because, as far as I can see, it's the best because of its brevity and lack of ambiguity. It's used on many articles and prior to this discussion I've not been aware of anyone having difficulty understanding it. As widowed isn't suitable because of its ambiguity, can anyone suggest an alternative, clear wording to put in an infobox to indicate that a marriage ended in the subject's death? Everything else I can think of is longer, rendering it unsuitable for the ibox. Jim Michael (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If someone out there is so incompetent to misinterpret having widowed next to Williams 3rd wife when the other two state divorce next to their names then there is a high probability they do not even know how to turn on a computer. If the specific date of his death is added next to her name with the word widowed and his death already being marked in the infobox, even a cactus has the IQ to figure that out. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Ease up mate. Even your cactus might be aware that "widowed" is an adjective applied to females, not males. And still you insist it be applied here to a male! Moriori (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No, a widow can only be female. but "widowed" applies to both widows and widowers. Meters (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've never been a fan of infoboxes. They attract god-awful abbreviations and "summaries" of the truth, like trying to use one word to describe the ideological position of a political party with thousands of members and an evolving position. It's a big ask. When compared with the simple, unarguable, genuinely unambiguous descriptor "divorced", "his death" just doesn't rate. We really need something that makes better use of the English language. Or perhaps a better label for what "his death" is an explanation of. Perhaps that final entry under Spouses could read something like "From 2011 until his death". (BTW: Saying "It's used on many articles" is not really any better than "We've always done it that way".) HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

2011 until his death is an acceptable alternative then the current poor use of the English language. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

And it's actually one character shorter than the present entry! Does that help Jim? HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

:::::::Jim isn't going to be the decider of this issue. Consensus is how things are done. want a decision made on what content the infobox will contain? Ask for consensus. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating your support for open discussion here. Jim, Slave and I were having a conversation. Hope you really don't mind too much. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if a majority would be reached on the issue, I doubt it would make a difference. There appears to be a group on this page who has joined together to control how it will be presented and will bully anyone off of it, then cry foul when someone stands firm on their belief that a different approach should be taken. Since Winkelvi has made a point of saying you were a trouble maker on Wikipedia HiLo48, then reverting your changes after offering a peace treaty, it's become quite apparent to me no amount of common sense is getting through on this talk page and it is not worth the effort any longer. WP:Avoiding difficult users. But if this behavior rears it's ugly head again in the future complaints will be made regarding those editors. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I take great pride in the fact that the real trouble makers regard me as a trouble maker. And it's fun getting in the way of those who won't or can't argue issues rationally. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to take the position that you feel you have to be the trouble maker, that means you are preemptively calling your actions disruptive, and you will will likely be blocked. To the point, every other page on a person who has died while still wed used the language we use here. That's the standard, just like the rest of our MOS. It is to avoid edit warring on mundane details. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You are always free to debate any topical nonsense on my talk page HiLo48, even if for some remote chance I do not agree, which for some reason I suspect will be unlikely based on what I have seen on this page. Speaking of this page, common sense can't find a place to sit down, so moving on. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

MASEM - change always begins somewhere. This being a very high profile article is a natural place for such new ideas to begin to evolve. What do you think of them? HiLo48 (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

However, we don't work that way on Wikipedia. You see wide consensus for major changes like this, and that is done on the pages where discussion of those standards are set (as mentioned before). Trying to force change on a high profile page is disruptive to consensus building. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood my point. We don't have to make the change unilaterally here, but change always begins somewhere. This being a very high profile article is a natural place for such new ideas to begin to evolve. What do you think of them? HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You completely missed my point. You don't fight for change on a high profile page, you bring the reasons for change to a centralized page for discussion (the locations I identified before), which will attract more eyes to start with. Remember, you are trying to convince Wikipedia editors that something should change; a high profile page has Wikipedia readers which most are unlikely to be editors. That's why it is proper suggest the change on, say {{Infobox person}}, than trying to say "let's make the change here and say it should stick." That's disruptive. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say "let's make the change here and say it should stick." Your persistent misrepresentation of what I write is becoming quite unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Although I dislike having to agree with Winklevi on something (due to our ongoing disagreement above), I agree with Winklevi, Masem, Jim Michael, and Slave1 on this one. Jim Michael definitely has the best argument, that "His death" and "Her death" are the most unambiguous, compact way of providing such information at an immediate glance in an infobox. (See the KISS principle.) I also concur with everyone that this is a situation where there is already an consensus around a very logical way of writing things in the infobox, and the discussion should take place on the infobox talk page. Not here. This is not the right place for such new ideas to evolve. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

- Because someone with a legal background has jumped into the fray, I will drop one more comment. I have several community commitments this week and cannot spend much time on Wikipedia as much as this hot topic keeps pulling me back here. First off Coolcaesar if you are in agreement with me that would not lead you to bunch me up with Winklevi, Masem, Jim Michael as I attempted to take this to the WP:MOSBIO's talk page only to be threatened by Winklevi on that page. Unfortunately a few editors misunderstood my suggestions in regards to the use of the word widow, widower or widowed and I did not feel at that time to continue explaining my point. Furthermore, I attempted to bring up the children parameter issue on the Template:Infobox person's talk page and did not get one single reply, so this seems like an apparent futile attempt. Now ... moving on to unambiguous: not open to more than one interpretation. Widowed: make into a widow or widower. -,- well ... if it's next to a woman's name it obviously means one thing and if it's next to a man's it means the other. How many cacti are reading Wikipedia these days? Because they would get it. It doesn't get more KISS principle then that. One word. Like the one word used for the other two spouses; divorce, not irreconcilable differences or mental anguish. Wish to discuss compact issues, widowed, 7 character spaces used, his or her death 9 character spaces. I would also like to point out that it is recommended in WP:MOS to use MOS:GNL. One can also conclude by adding his / her death is being added to be clear enough to dumb it down for the reader MOS:NOTED. Lastly, this would have been a perfect place to begin change. A high profile article is exactly where a positive change on Wikipedia should take place but now that the article is about to drop off the news list I sense an opportunity has been lost. HiLo48 and I have been spot on to argue this point, most positive changes in the world tend to be voiced by the minority groups, until more voices gather and a victory is achieved. It is a long an arduous process. But no positive change comes easily in life, even for something that sounds so trivial to some of you as an entry on Wikipedia. Some of us see it as the beginning of respectability. I need to get back to my community involvement, but once that is done, I will gladly find all the citations some of the brick walls have requested and will demonstrate why changes need to made to Wikipedia in some aspects. Status quo is a bad policy when the walls of your empire are crumpling and your egos are too inflated by the little ubiquitous powers "some" of the aforementioned editors have been given. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"only to be threatened by Winklevi on that page." That is complete bullshit. My statement was: "I've made no accusations, however, you are making threats. And in light of that, I'm advising you to back off and change your tone and attitude or the way this is starting to go will not end well for you." There is no threat in what I said. I was merely commenting on your behavior and how that behavior could end up putting you in a position that would jeopardize your ability to edit for a while (i.e., possibly lead to a block). If I was threatening you, as you claim, I would have taken you to AN/I or another noticeboard, because your behavior did not change. And it still has not. The best example of this (aside from your latest comment here) is when I attempted to straighten things out with you, attempted to make a good faith effort to edit collegially and with no hard feelings by writing the following on your talk page: "Consider this me offering you an olive branch for the good of the 'pedia." You responded: "I like olives, I like peace offerings, but I also like debates, I know you're a smart cookie when you want to be, big words are the best, they suit you well, don't lower yourself with that muck vernacular. Masem is a great editor, but he needs to be a tad more accepting of outside views at times. Olive branch accepted" Then, just 2 1/2 hours later, you came to my talk page with this: "I'm returning your olive branch. Seems unfortunate you had to go an revert an edit immediately after offering a truce, but I think I'll stick with interpreting what I read on Wikipedia as I have so far and continue to try and improve it. If I happen to bump heads with editors, not much I can do about it." Now, you are trying to form an alliance with an editor who has expressed a disdain for me. The only thing you are accomplishing is more disruptive behavior, Slave28. I have no idea what your endgame is, and I won't speculate, but it doesn't seem honest nor does it seem constructive and in the best interest of this article the Wikipedia community. You can bet that by now, several administrators and long-time editors are watching what's been happening here. And just to be clear, pointing this out to you is not a threat, but a reminder that nothing happens in a vacuum in Wikipedia. I've seen actions such as what you (and a couple others) are engaging in occur in the past and it rarely ends up well for those perpetuating such disruption and stubbornness. Good editing in Wikipedia is about being helpful, working cooperatively and nicely with others, and accepting that not everything will go the way we want it to. Way too much time and bandwidth has been wasted with this loser of a argument. Others beside me have said the same. An administrator has already given good advice about where this discussion for a larger change should take place, yet you continue to hammer away at it here in IDHT fashion. I said it yesterday and will say it again, please drop the stick and stop beating this dead horse. Stop talking about editors and start talking about edits. And please stop misrepresenting what I've said. Personally, I hate lies and lying. Beyond my personal views, however, lying about editors is just not a good idea when everything written here is so readily available and easily found. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

- again ... I no longer have time to waste on this, but just to point out, and I am more then done after this, "the way this is starting to go will not end well for you" not sure how the law works where you are, but in Canada that is an open ended threat, and can get you arrested in certain contexts (I dare you to say it out loud with a police officer in the vicinity, should be an interesting experiment). And don't patronize me in regards to your olive branch and slandering HiLo48. I am a new user and you did not treat me as such. I made clear why I decided to join Wikipedia after you made your threat, and yes it was threat (I studied law). I have nothing but good intentions and you seem to want to twist things around and sully my name. Strange how that got archived pretty quickly. HiLo48's opinions of you notwithstanding, he happened to agree with me on how an edit should proceed we discussed it on the talk page no one else did so he chose to make it, this is not an alliance merely an agreement. You reverted it and I changed it back as per discussion on the talk page and you reverted again accusing me of starting an edit war. I will agree with you that several people are reading this section by now and are watching you have a tantrum, proof lies in your theatre production of a comment above (you claimed I threatened others but have yet to provide any proof of such threats). There are no "loser" arguments on Wikipedia, let's get that clear, and this horse is a stallion who just got entered in the Kentucky Derby because "his/her death" would never appear in any other encyclopedia, and as you requested, I will get you all the citations possible when time permits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slave28 (talk • contribs)

Be aware that at Wikipedia we do take attempts at legal threats very seriously, and have a strong definition what they are. Winkelvi has not issued anything close to a legal threat against you (per our definition), but you are treading the line (not crossed though) by mention of outside legal aspects and statements like "but in Canada that is an open ended threat, and can get you arrested in certain contexts". You need to read how Bold Revert Discussion works - if a change you make is reverted, you don't re-revert it , you discuss it, as otherwise that is considered the start of edit warring. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's a cultural difference. Maybe I just have higher standards than some. But the language of "his death" is just unacceptable to me. I will never accept it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're off your rocker if you think "his death" as a fragment is somehow bad English or improper. It's perfectly descriptive, and far less ambiguous than "widowed". In fact, I would argue that the ambiguity brought in by using "widowed" may run afoul of BLP (for his still-living widow) and BDP (for Williams himself). The other suggestion here, that we should use "From 2011 until his death", is equally silly. Infoboxes are intended to be concise presentations of information. To suggest that a fragment is somehow less appropriate is tantamount to suggesting that every word in an infobox should be part of a complete sentence. The argument is a non-starter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

How on earth could "widowed" possibly be a BLP problem? That's insane. Anyway, whatever the answer, it wasn't what I was suggesting. I suggested the clearer version you attack as not being concise, and have already pointed out that it's actually shorter than what's there now, It's really frustrating when people who disagree with me argue against things I didn't say, or say things I have already refuted. Finally, as I have already said, maybe I have higher standards for our quality encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox details aren't sentences, so they don't need to conform to rules regarding correct grammar for a sentence. Jim Michael (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but if they can, they might as well. HiLo48 (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Obviously there are some very intelligent editors out there who agree that widowed belongs in the infobox, how else do you explain the following:

Valerie Velardi

​

​

(m. 1978; div. 1988)​

Marsha Garces

​

​

(m. 1989; div. 2008)​

Susan Schneider

​

​

(m. 2011;  2014)​

if it picks up the abbreviation it was programmed to recognize widowed as an acceptable outcome of a termination for marriage, as oppose to let's say this

Valerie Velardi

​

​

(m. 1978; div. 1988)​

Marsha Garces

​

​

(m. 1989; div. 2008)​

Susan Schneider

​

​

(m. 2011; chocolate 2014)​

--[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

So far, I see five editors who believe it should stay as "his death" and only two who believe it should read "widowed". If this were a consensus count, consensus would be clearly in favor of "his death". -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to what I have come to conclude as a group of editors who have refused to accept that there is serious flaws in their argument ... not to worry, evidence can stack much higher then your grammatical house of cards. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There is (or should be) a third option: neither one! That should solve it. A "reason" (including divorce) is not needed in an infobox. Details are what the main body is for. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the details of marriage is something people turn to the infobox for, and knowing the difference between a divorce and a widowed case is needed. --MASEM (t) 05:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Earlier, you suggested taking it to {{Infobox person}}, well none of this is mentioned at Template:Infobox_person#Parameters. It just says, "For deceased persons still married at time of death, close the date range with death year." So, we can't say that something needs to be in it if the guidelines don't say it. I think instead of just the "death year", it should be the date of death (which shows up when you hover over it). --Musdan77 (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Been thinking about this, having seen "his death" confusingly used in another article today. As indicated in the above few posts, we're really talking about marriages, not spouses. It's the marriage that ends upon his death, not the spouse. Could we change "Spouses" to Marriages"? (Yes, I know it would need a template change, but it's rational to discuss it here first where we can all see a relevant example before rushing off the the world of changing templates.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You're still at the wrong talk page for suggesting, discussing, and enacting such a change. This has been pointed out to you previously. More than once. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

And you're either illiterate or very badly mannered. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

One can't be a spouse without being married -- and vice versa. Once a marriage ends the person either becomes a divorcee or a widow. Now, I'm not saying that "widowed" should be used. I still think that no reason needs to be used -- in fact when it comes down to it, even the parenthetical year ranges aren't needed in the infobox. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Archiving of Talk topics is way too fast here

There isn't any reason why Talk topics a week or less old (from their initiation date) should be archived. The list of topics was not particularly long. Please stop the constant archiving. Let topics sit here for a longer time, so people can continue to locate them and add input. Moving them away so soon also means Talk topics get re-discussed needlessly, as people aren't aware the topic has already been discussed. Moncrief (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, it was needed to be faster, but now it is slowed down, I've changed the autoarchive to 2 weeks. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Video game hobby

The paragraph about his video game hobby and childrens' names seems excessive, IMO. It includes 9 cites and 14 wiki links, is loaded with trivia, and is overweight for a section about his Other interests. I think reducing the commentary to more general video game facts, including his general interest in the web, and letting readers go to a linked cite for the video game minutia, would be cleaner.

Current paragraph:

Williams was an enthusiast of video games and named two of his children after game characters. He named his daughter after Princess Zelda from The Legend of Zelda,[93] and at one time they were both featured in an ad for Nintendo.[94] He did not state which game he named his son Cody after.[95] He enjoyed pen-and-paper role-playing games and online video games, playing Warcraft III,[96] Day of Defeat, Half-Life,[96] and Battlefield 2.[97] He was previously a fan of the Wizardry series of role-playing video games.[98] Williams was also a player of the massively-multiplayer online game World of Warcraft by Blizzard Entertainment.[99] Williams performed live at Google's keynote session at the 2006 Consumer Electronics Show,[100] and participated in a live demonstration of Spore by invitation of the game's creator Will Wright at the 2006 Electronic Entertainment Exposition.[101] Williams was one of several celebrities to participate in the 2007 Worldwide Dungeons & Dragons Game Day in London.[102]--Light show (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down and removed one blog ref. But the number of links or cites is not an issue for a single paragraph. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

A little tighter. But can we fairly leave out favorite bicycle brands and Jay Leno, for instance, from the cycling paragraph, if we include details about his video game hobby? A sentence such as this one seems excessive: Williams performed live at Google's keynote session at the 2006 Consumer Electronics Show,[98] and participated in a live demonstration of Spore by invitation of the game's creator Will Wright at the 2006 Electronic Entertainment Exposition. Once we open the floodgates to that kind of minutia for one hobby, other hobby trivia, such as names, dates, brands, places, etc., should also be acceptable. --Light show (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Light show. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Trimmed more. The only game that needs to be left by name is Legend of Zelda due to Zelda's naming. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Much cleaner now. --Light show (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)