Talk:Robin Williams/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

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

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

---

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

Survey

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

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

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

Your comments found here [1] show your claim of not having a problem with the consensus reached and agreed upon again in further discussion to be false. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsha_Garces_Williams - --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Update for User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) Yes to ALL children being listed" --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes - Nothing wrong with listing the notable ones, "3; including Zelda Williams" is imho just fine .–Davey2010 • (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Include- I don't see a compelling reason not to include it. Most of the arguments to leave out seem preference based while the arguments for inclusion seem policy based. I see claims of bad faith but no evidence of it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• Include names of children with articles. The relevant concept for performers is: was the person merely an actor in a movie, or were they the director, producer, or head writer? in other words, is it their CREATION? kids can then be considered a "creation". and this wont become a problem, as children only have 2 (maybe 3) parents, so even if all their parents are notable, it wont produce bloated navboxes. same in reverse: parents usually have no more than a few notable children, so that wont clog the navboxes either. the goal here is a workable navbox, and listing all their roles makes them unworkable and useless. drawing the line at notable children seems to me a very reasonable compromise.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussions

Off-topic back and forth commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not the case at all. One revert is not edit warring. I gave my reasons for removing the names from that infobox at the article's talk page ([2]). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 14:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Doing such a thing might suggest...she was his only child". Yes, hello? Exactly why the new field should read "Notable children". Exactly why putting in just one child's name in the "Children" field wouldn't work. Exactly why there was an earlier consensus to leave all of their names out of the infobox to begin with. And just for shits and giggles, let's look at another actor/comedian and how his article's infobox reads in regard to his notable children: [3]; then, look at the article section: [4]. His notable, actress daughter isn't in the infobox, but is noted in the article section Personal life. Where is the precedent for naming ONLY notable children in the "Children" infobox field for similar articles? Further, realize that no one cared about listing Williams' notable daughter before his death, even though the article has existed for years. Why is it suddenly so important Zelda's name be included? Especially since no precedent article/infobox has been noted. I still say Zelda's name stays out of the infobox along with the other children, and being mentioned in the article is enough. If we can't agree on that, then "Notable children" (in addition to Children: 3 in the infobox) will have to be the compromise. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Means of death

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

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

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

While the only absolute requirement for inclusion is that such information has to be reliably sourced, it seems like an excess amount to add. Some could be included, but not all of it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's too, long, macabre, and voyeuristic; it smacks of rubber-necking at a grisly highway accident. The details of his death are not notable in an article about him and give undue weight to his death, they're irrelevant, and even cruel. At most, add an additional reference after the word asphyxiated to a source where this information can be found, but I would vote against that as well. Mathglot (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Mathglot. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. In fact it would be beyond macabre, and truly strange, to include such details and end the paragraph with the suggested, "The family respectfully asks for their privacy as they grieve during this very difficult time." --Light show (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I would support more detail (trace the history, notice how I did put in more details that were excised by other editors) but what the anon IP is proposing definitely crosses the line into TMI. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Excessive and morbid. All that should be there is the cause, place and date of death and his age at time of death. There's no reason to include details of how he went about hanging himself, the exact position he was found in or what other wounds he gave himself. He hanged himself with a belt at his home in Paradise Cay, CA, on August 11, 2014, as a result of severe depression. He was 63. Boom, done. No other information is relevant or needed. --ThylekShran (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Smacks of recentism, and is horribly unencyclopaedic. Look at pretty much any encyclopaedia (online or paper) and the death covers less than a line of 99% of any biography ("died of a heat attack at home", etc). What we have at the moment is almost excessive (we don't need to mention the Marin County Sheriff's Office deputy coroner - it reads as a newspaper, not an encyclopaedia), but it's just about OK, and certainly doesn't need bloating out. - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Add to the other dissent statements here, but I think we're also still waiting on a true official autopsy report (which of course, probably has been done but likely sealed for privacy reasons, so not to expect it soon), and so any of the other details - short of having appeared to been suicide - is wide speculation that the sensational side of the press has generated. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, autopsy results are public record in California so they can't be sealed for privacy reasons. For the record, an official autopsy report is expected by early November, having been delayed by over a month on Sept. 30. Results are due back by Nov. 3, so expect a report shortly after (or possibly even a little before) that date. --ThylekShran (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, wasn't aware of the delay. Again, we should judge what that says to see if any other details are needed but I'd strongly recommended keeping to the bare minimum. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of details of friendship with Christopher Reeve

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

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

My removal had nothing to do with how well-known they were. Friendships in general tend not to be included on pages. Friendship details actually shouldn't be on Reeve's page either, I'm saying that his death and maybe custody details of his son should only be on Reeve's page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Then by that logic we should remove any marriage and children and parents info. I agree that if we listed every person that we could document as a friend of Williams, that list would be trivial; but the friendship he had with Reeve is the subject of discussion by sources, elevating it past a simple friendship aspect; it also shows part of Williams' charitible effort. --MASEM (t) 04:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agree with Masem. The friendship would be a trivial mention if it was only involving their days at Julliard. The friendship lasted beyond Julliard, extended into Reeve's well-publicized accident then beyond that and Reeve's death and his wife's death to a relationship with Reeve's child. That's definitely not a trivial chain of events. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Marriages, family members, and partners are different than friendships. Unless a critical part of career or something, friends aren't something we need to mention. It's not like Matt Stone and Trey Parker, who are frequent collaborators and have closely intertwined careers. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me, with Williams reaching out to Reeve following his accident and then reaching out to Reeve's orphaned son, that their lives "intertwined". Just because they were in the same business, "intertwined" doesn't have to be related only to their careers. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The early life section has three paragraphs dealing with their friendship, which began at Julliard. This later life friendship is a continuation of that, and from the details, Reeve was one of his oldest and best friends. The other brief personal life details, being that they're so short, also adds substance to his bio, which included more than just acting. From the article text, he may have been his closest friend, and the only close friend mentioned. --Light show (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

At the very least, it doesn't warrant a separate section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Where else would it fit? It's a personal life detail. --Light show (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Considering the facts the three of us have brought forth, I think it does merit its own separate section. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...... maybe in "Early life and education", there could be something like "After Reeve's death, Williams provided financial support to his son". On its own, it would be a very short section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

He also paid Reeve's medical bills when his insurance ran out. It may not be a very clean fit, however, since the early life sections are focused on the school.--Light show (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There are the medical bills, though remember that the text can be fiddled around with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2014

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia Top 25

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

REwrite time

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

Dementia and Parkinson's

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

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

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

Committed suicide/died by suicide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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