Talk:Michelle Williams (actress)

Requested move 6 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There's no consensus for move at this time. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Michelle Williams (actress) → Michelle Ingrid Williams –

(1) WP:Natural disambiguation. Natural disambiguation is very standard in the real world, Wikipedia’s affection for the parenthetical notwithstanding.

(2) To solve the titling problem with the ambiguous Michelle_Williams_on_screen_and_stage.

(3) Real world common name for the person. Examples:

* https://www.instagram.com/michelleingridwilliams_/?hl=en

* https://play.google.com/store/music/artist/Michelle_Ingrid_Williams

* https://www.thefamousbirthdays.com/people/michelle-ingrid-williams

SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The other Michelle Williams (singer) is primarily known for her singing and is disambiguated accordingly, so there is no conflict to resolve here. I also don't think these sources are sufficient to establish that use of her middle name is part of a WP:COMMONNAME. Therefore, use of the middle name is not preferred by WP:NATURAL, which states: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.

That Instagram page is not her official page, for example, but is the "Italian fanpage for Michelle Williams' fans". Use of the middle name in this case is venturing into the use of an obscure name area. Most people simply don't know her as "Michelle Ingrid Williams". As to the supposed "problem with the ambiguous Michelle_Williams_on_screen_and_stage", there is no problem there, as explained at Talk:Michelle_Williams_on_screen_and_stage#Requested_move_5_December_2019. --В²C ☎ 00:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Her middle name is NOT obscure or made up, and so your quote of NATURAL is off the mark. This proposal is supported by NATURAL. Michelle Ingrid Williams is clearly a COMMONNAME for her, even if the listed sources are not source quality sources. Michelle Williams is ambiguous, and when you look for this person, “Ingrid” is up there at the top every time. Sarah Jane Brown is a less clear cut excellent precedent. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Declaring her middle name is not obscure without substantiation is not an argument. We have countless actors, actresses, writers, artists, etc. who each have an ambiguous First Last name, and a middle name, but are nevertheless disambiguated by the occupation for which they are best known in parentheses, not by their middle name, precisely because the middle name is considered obscure. You've not indicated why the middle name of this actress is any less obscure. Use of a middle name in the title, unless it is widely known, is not a WP practice. --В²C ☎ 00:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Why not obscure? It’s what the subject uses for disambiguation in social media, and on things like googleplay. Is in the lede sentence of every biography. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. In the case of actors, their on-screen stage name must be also considered their WP:COMMONNAME, even if they use their full birth name on social media. In the most obvious examples, superstars Madonna Ciccone and Prince Rogers Nelson are listed in the main title headers of their articles as Madonna (entertainer) and Prince (musician) even though their full birth names are well known to the public. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Solution looking for a problem. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This does not work for the recognizability criterion, to the extent that if I saw this title I would probably think it was referring to a different person. Dekimasuよ! 08:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Natural disambiguation is preferred. The most commonly recognizable name ("natural-language word or expression") is "Michelle Williams", not "Michelle Williams (actress)"; the parenthetical term is not part of the name. Therefore there's no argument to be made for the former as a "common name" at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The parenthetic expression in parenthetic disambiguation is never part of the common name; the portion outside of the parentheses is the common name. We generally prefer this to “natural disambiguation” when the “natural disambiguation” is not something the subject is commonly called in reliable English sources. —В²C ☎ 14:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose her WP:COMMONNAME is clearly just Michelle Williams, only obscure references use her middle name. Her occupation is a better disambiguator than a rarely used middle name.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The actress has never been credited as "Michelle Ingrid Williams" and the social media site provided is a fan account. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC on end of marriage

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to note the divorce in the infobox. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Should the marriage template in the infobox include "|end=div"? The 2019 Pitchfork source in the main body states, "He’s not married to Williams anymore either; they quietly filed for divorce this April, after less than a year of marriage." Does them filing for divorce and not being married anymore signify they are divorced, or does this just mean the marriage is romantically over and we need to wait until there is a source explicitly stating that the divorce has been finalized? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• There are more explicit sources, as part of engagement-pregnancy-next marriage.

Harper’s Bazaar Michelle Williams and Thomas Kail Are Married 23 March 2020

The Cut Michelle Williams Got Married in Secret to Thomas Kail

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I was able to find two more sources (Billboard and Mercury News) that state the two are divorced, so I think it's fine for the template to say that the marriage ended in divorce. Quorum816 (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes per sources provided by Markbassett and Quorum816. Ikjbagl (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2020 (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.

Combining life and career

Her personal life and her career are two completely separate entities. It makes no sense to combine them. The majority of articles separate them. I see no reason why this one should be different at all. I already went through the effort to effectively separate the two entities with some help User:Abbyjjjj96, but I've been reverted by User:Krimuk2.0 who won't provide me with any actual reason why they should be combine other than that it was a change. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 09:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"majority of articles separate them" is not a Wikipedia policy. We edit based on policy. Unless you can provide us with a policy that states that "life and her career are two completely separate entities" and should be separated, you shouldn't be edit-warring. Check other similar FA's such as Laurence Olivier, Charlie Chaplin, John Gielgud, Ralph Richardson, and Sonam K Ahuja. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Having a 'Personal life' section makes for easier reading, rather than having to read the whole 'Life and career' section for details (MOS:ACCESS). "Wikipedia has no general standard or guideline regarding the names or order of section headings within the body of an article. The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of similar articles" (MOS:BODY) – I believe the majority of articles about actors have a personal life section. Per WP:SUMMARY, "each major subtopic is detailed in its own section of the article", although I guess that depends on if you personally consider her personal life to be a major subtopic (I do). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: I outlined numerous policies here. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but these are subjective. MOS:ACCESS and MOS:BODY are not policies, but a stylistic guideline; and as it rightfully says, there is "no general standard or guideline". For the precedent, I have already cited the FAs Laurence Olivier, Charlie Chaplin, John Gielgud, Ralph Richardson, and Sonam K Ahuja. Are there exact policies that dictate how many sub-sections are necessary in a BLP? No. So, in the absence of that, all choices are correct; as you rightfully said, what one "personally consider"s to be way. So, to argue for change, the only reason that appears in this context is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you have cited a number of articles which don't have a personal life section, but I could also cite a number of articles which do (Natalie Portman, Angelina Jolie, Gary Oldman, Diana Rigg, Elizabeth Taylor, Vanessa Redgrave, etc). Just because MOS:ACCESS is a stylistic guideline rather than a policy doesn't mean it should be ignored. As you have yet to cite a policy/guideline which refutes it, you are the one arguing WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly! So both exists and both are correct. When there is no evidence to prove that the current version is wrong, there doesn't exist a valid reason to change. Basic Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

So, you don't have a guideline which refutes MOS:ACCESS and just don't like it. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

So, you don't have a guideline which says the current version violates MOS:ACCESS and just don't like it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

MOS:ACCESS is the guideline. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

And which part of the guideline (one that starts with Wikipedia has no general standard or guideline in this matter) does this article violate? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"Web accessibility is the goal of making web pages easier to navigate and read". Having the personal life interfused with her career makes it more difficult to find information. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

So a subjective "more difficult to find" is your argument. That's just.... yep, you guessed it.... I don't like it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all, you are just as guilty as editing warring as me, so you're in no position to call me out for edit warring, especially since you're first edit summary was just "restoring" which is an edit summary that should only be used when undoing vandalism. Second of all, you still aren't providing any actual reason to include them in one section. If I'm only here to find out about her personal life, why should I have to go through all of these paragraphs of her career information just to find out about it? Sperating them allows readers to find just the information they're here to learn. Most readers aren't coming here to read the entire article, and the ones that are will not be inconvenienced in anyway by splitting the two sections. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 13:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, restoring to the WP:STATUSQUO on what was decided to be the best-article quality by an extensive FAC is exactly what our policy dictates. The onus is on you to gain community consensus for your mass-scale changes, per WP:BRD. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you should actually read WP:BRD before citing it so much. "Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed". JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 13:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you should actually read WP:STATUSQUO: " Instead of engaging in an edit war, which is harmful, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo". Plus, maybe you should cite a single policy that support your changes that's not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

It's ironic that you're accusing us of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, when that's what you're doing. We explained how it's more accessible and completely lines with policy to split them. Your entire argument is just that we're changing the article, which is not a valid argument. BRD and Status Quo mean that we use the original version while a debate is ongoing. They do not mean we cannot change the article and are not valid reasons to not change articles. 15:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDDJS (talk • contribs)

"completely lines with policy to split them" == nope. You have failed to provide a single policy that says the current version is wrong and should be changed. Also, not how WP:CONSENSUS works. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I never said the current version is "wrong". But the new version better aligns with several policies that we already mentioned, including WP:SUMMARY. Not only is "if ain't broke don't fix it" not a policy on Wikipedia, but it goes against the fundamental idea of Wikipedia to constantly improve. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"several policies that we already mentioned" == again, that did not happen. Guidelines that start with no general standard or guideline is not a policy. "it goes against the fundamental idea of Wikipedia" == if that was the case, the page would have been long deleted. Also, you think your version is an improvement. I don't. WP:CONSENSUS highlights what needs to be done in such cases. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

This article used to have separate sections for her early life, career and personal life. Earlier in this discussion, you called separating the current 'Life and career' section into three sections "mass-scale changes" which require consensus per WP:BRD. And yet, you are the one who made "mass-scale changes" when you combined the sections in the first place. There isn't a discussion about it on the talk page, so what consensus did you have? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You seriously need to read up on what WP:CONSENSUS actually is (when I made that edit in 2018 when the article was barely at 20% of what it is now, did anyone revert me; so how does WP:BRD apply there?) and you need to familiarise yourself with the WP:FAC process. Qualified editors passed it as an WP:FA, which is "considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer", here -- that's the consensus I had. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging SchroCat, Cassianto, Ian Rose, Tim riley, Encyclopædius who have actually written FA-quality articles on actors/actresses for their input. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes the sequence of events makes it difficult, even impossible, to maintain a single coherent chronological narrative, in which case a "personal life" section is needed, but where one can outline someone's life and career from cradle to grave (or to the present in this case) in a single span it is better to do so. If you buy a biography from a bookshop you would expect that. I have never heard of this actress and can't usefully comment in detail, but I do think it arrogant to barge in and try to rewrite a Featured Article without consultation. Tim riley talk 17:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to start an RFC about this to get more editors involved. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

JDDJS, you're going to start an RfC because you don't like the answer you're being given. Cassianto^Talk 00:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto Krimuk2.0's only explanation for not reverting the edit was that it was different and didn't have consensus. He made no explanation to what was actually "wrong" with my version. So, I decided to see if I could get an actual consensus with an RFC. I don't see at all how that's a problem. I posted the RFC completely neutrally. If the RFC results in consensus against separating them, I'll accept it no problem. But the argument was going nowhere with Krimuk2.0's sole explanation that it was a change to the article absolutely not being a satisfying enough reason for me to let this go, but there also weren't enough users participating to get a consensus one way or the other. RFC was the next logical step, and suggesting that it was wrong to get more users participating in a discussion is honestly pretty weird. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

JDDJS, you have to afford some respect to the principle writer . I couldn't give a flying toss what WP:OWN says - that was written by a group of people who've probably never written a decent article in their lives, so they will not understand stewardship or why someone, who has spent a vast amount of their time and money writing something for the benefit of others, gets all protective over it. Now, because you don't agree with the principle author, you're inviting a bunch of strangers along (who've probebly never heard of Michelle Williams) to try to override the wishes of the author. Not good. Cassianto^Talk 06:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

So you don't give a flying toss about the policies of editing here? Not good. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 10:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

RFC

Should we leave her life and career combined in one section or should we separate them like in this revision? Please note the above conversation when contributing. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Separate As explained above, keeping the sections separate makes the article more accessible because it makes easier for readers who are only interested in reading just about her personal life find the information that they want. Most readers aren't interested in reading the full article, but rather just specific information and separating the sections makes it easier to do that while doing nothing to disservice readers interested in reading the entire article. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"Most readers aren't interested in reading the full article..."? Have you asked them? I think perhaps you mean you are not interested. The article as agreed at FAC seems admirable to me. I wouldn't "seperate" or even "separate". Tim riley talk 17:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is supposed to lay out the career of a four-time Academy Award nominated, Emmy-winning, SAG-winning, and two-time Golden Globe-winning actress. If people are only coming here for grief porn—they’re a decade too late. For her unorthodox romantic life? They have the wrong article. They should try People or Vanity Fair (which actually did an article about it with her). Why should we degrade a featured article because of the alleged laziness of a reader? Would you do it to Taylor Swift’s Featured Article? Who’s had an exponentially more storied personal life? Are people that superficial? If that’s all they care about, there’s always The Daily Mail. Some people actually expect a modicum of editorial quality from this website. Trillfendi (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Combine, per the FA version. As Tim Riley noted above, her life and career have been written in a "single coherent chronological narrative". Her career began at a young age, and her early life information overlaps with that part. Also, her relationship with Heath Ledger, trauma over his death, and parental commitments are directly tied with her acting work. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Separate for accessibility. You shouldn't have to sift through the mammoth 'Life and career' section to glean details of her personal life. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Before substantially changing an FA you need to contact the FAC reviewers to see if they agree that your changes do or do not affect their support for FA status. I assume you have done so, or will be doing so? Tim riley talk 17:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@User:Tim riley While I welcome them to contribute to this discussion, I am unaware of any policy or guideline that says that FAC reviewers have to approve of any changes done to a featured article. I was under the impression that FA are under the same editing rules as any other article. If I'm mistaken (which is absolutely possible), please show me the policy or guideline I'm missing. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

It's the general practice, and common sense as well as common courtesy: if you change what they've approved they may no longer think it worthy of FA. If you are worried that they will laugh at you, I'm sure they won't, and will give a considered view, but you really must invite them. Tim riley talk 19:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@JDDJS: This is the relevant policy. 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:695E:3E11:753C:31B9 (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@User:Tim riley I don't know if it was intentional or not, but where you imply that I might be afraid of pinging because they'll laugh at me, came off offensive to me. Again, I don't know whether or not you meant it that, but that's the way it came off to me. I'm all for them contributing to this discussion, and you are free to message them about this discussion, but suggesting that I must personally ask them before editing the page, or that their opinion is worth more than anyone else's implies they have some sort of ownership of the article. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

JDDJS, and there it is, the inevitable OWNership slur. The same could be said for you for wanting to separate the sections, has that occurred to you? Cassianto^Talk 00:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto You're being absolutely ridiculous here. Suggesting that I'm claiming ownership to article because I want to change is absurd. However, the idea that I need to clear an edit with any specific users before making it is literally one of the examples on the page. "Please do not make any more changes without my/their/our approval." "Please clear this with WikiProject Z first." "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." This is "no I'm not, you are" type of response is honestly quite childish. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

JDDJS, I'm only accusing you of what you seem to be accusing others of. If it's ownership not wanting something changed, then equally it's ownership trying to get something changed. Quit with the cloak and dagger personal attacks and stick to your reasons for wanting this change to occur. And please don't bludgeon people with whom you disagree by challenging their views. This is an RfC and people are entitled to comment - hence the name of the ruddy thing. You may not like some of the answers given, but that's tough. Cassianto^Talk 06:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not say it was ownership to not want it to change. I said it was ownership to say that I need to get the opinion of a specific group of people before editing the article because that's literally what WP:OWN says. And your comment "Quit with the cloak and dagger personal attacks and stick to your reasons for wanting this change to occur." is really ironic coming from you considering that all you have been doing here is cloak and dagger personal attacks against me; you haven't even commented on the actual issue at hand yet. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 10:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, the only one making personal attacks, by calling people "ridiculous" and "childish" is you, JDDJS. You should pay heed to your own advice and stop doing that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Saying that I'm making an ownership claim because I started an RFC about changing the article is objectively ridiculous. Calling it out as such is not a personal attack. And I'm not the one openly saying that I don't give "a flying toss" about a policy because it "was written by a group of people who've probably never written a decent article in their lives". JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 11:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

JDDJS, well I don't. And they probebly haven't. Two truths I'd suggest you try and get used to. Cassianto^Talk 20:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

JDDJS, I think you've now set the tone for this RfC, so congrats. You simply cannot start accusing the primary author of ownership and then whinge and whine when they go on the defence. Is this your normal behaviour? Cassianto^Talk 20:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

CassiantoThat's not at all what happened though. I didn't accuse the primary author of ownership though. When User:Tim riley (who by his own claim has never even heard of Williams before commenting here) said that we have to go by what the FA reviewers say, I asked him if that was based on a policy. He admitted that it was not but insisted that it must be done that way anyway. I then said that sounds like ownership, which I stand by. He did not respond to that comment, but that's when you joined the conversation joined in the conversation, not to contribute to the content discussion, but to attack me. You haven't made single comment at all about the content of the article or made a comment to anyone else in this conversation. Instead, you've just been complaining that I'm not doing the exact opposite of a policy here. Is this your normal behaviour? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:43, 11 September 2020 (

You seem to me to misunderstand WP:OWN. I have not suggested that the FAC reviewers have any locus as regards the content of this article, but they self-evidently do have as to its continued status as an FA if it is drastically changed from the version they collectively approved. I have been consulted in such a context from time to time over changes to FAs of which I have been an FAC reviewer, most recently, if memory serves, by Gog the Mild. I can't understand why you are so reluctant to ask them for their views, which is the proper and honourable thing to do. Tim riley talk 07:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Tim riley: the above was a little WP:TLDR. Tim, could you let me know if I really should read it all. I gather that WP:FAOWN is the relevant policy. (Note that it is not a guideline.) My personal spin on it can, as Tim suggests, be seen in this discussion. Myself (as the FAC nominee and article "steward") and the intervening editor (Piledhigheranddeeper) rapidly agreed that a specific change would improve the article, but I held off making it until those who had contributed to the original consensus that the article should become an FC had had a chance to contribute; and PH&D held off edit warring until this had played out. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Combine For the readers of popular articles (e.g. Katy Perry, Madonna, etc.) it can become annoying visually because they accept the de facto standard of the common personal life section, but truth be told, why devote a section of this article to what ends up being 5 sentences? Trillfendi (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Separate - guidelines for the layout of an article are just that, guidelines, and as accurately noted above - both exist and both are correct. So for me, as a reader and editor, my personal preference aligns with the argument that separation is easier to navigate and read, accessibility. And per the advice at the top of the talk page, if you can update or improve it, please do so. In my opinion, separation is an improvement. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Combine, per Tim riley above. The style of separating a "personal life" section in many modern performers' articles is lazy and not helpful to an understanding of the person. It is better to put all the events of a life in chronological order with the person's career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Combine I have been following the discussion and was waiting to see a convincing reason to separate the sections, but have not. This seems to be little more than "I don't like it" and "Because other articles do it" – "Life and career" is a standard way of formatting biographies on WP (it is used on more or less every composer article for example), I have used it time and time again myself. The main argument seems to be for "readability", but as others have noted, for this article in particular it is easier to read if the sections are together since the her career aligns so much with her life. Taking them out would cause an unnecessary lack in fluidity. Aza24 (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Separate. There's every reason to have the details of her personal life listed separately, for anyone interested in that (note I said "interested in that", not "only interested in that"), and since her personal life was not part of her career, it should be a separate section. The article is already massive at 122,310 bytes and dense text, so anything that can help the reader such as sectioning personal-life details is to be desired. This improves navigation, readability, and accessibility. These sorts of things are generally why we have specific sections for filmography (separated into film and stage), personal life, early life and education (or early life and early career), awards, etc.

  To me that's the difference between an encyclopedia and a book.To me, the goal of an encyclopedia is to deliver pertinent information in an organized, easily accessible way. The goal of a book is to tell an eloquent, interesting, very lengthy story, that holds the reader's interest longterm (over days or weeks), and which is generally strictly chronological and uninterrupted. Softlavender (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• Combine per Tim riley. ~ HAL333 16:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Combine: I'm, surprisingly, in much disagreement with much of the views I see above on both sides of the issue. I don't agree that most readers will/should want to read the article in full, and I don't like the elitism I'm seeing from the FA cohort, but I do not agree that separating a "Personal life" section makes the article more readable, meaningful or consistent with other articles. If readers want to read about Williams' personal life then instead they'll find a "Media image and acting style" section which explains Williams' reticence to be objectified and stereotyped based on her relationships and family life. We are not a gossip rag or a gaggle of pervert paparazzi and Williams' personal life is not itself a significant aspect of the notable topic "Michelle Williams (actress)", except where it is widely identified as relevant by the highest-quality reliable sources and where she chooses to discuss such details widely. There are plenty of facts that this article excludes that could be well-sourced, but we must omit the least important ones so that the article is short enough to read. — Bilorv (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Awards in the header

Currently the summary sentence on awards in the header lists a rather arbitrary selection of the top awards. Why are Oscar nominations named but BAFTA Awards are missing? To be less random here I find it a good idea to name the top awards as specified in the page List of awards and nominations received by Michelle Williams (actress) --Yqzuvwj (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It's simple. That is her awards page. This is not her awards page. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

But that doesn't justify a just random selection of her awards on the actress page. The header should list the most important info about her. So I opt for listing all top awards. And to avoid arbitrariness, I like to follow the selection of what a top award is as done on the awards page. Yqzuvwj (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

What makes the "selection of what a top award is as done on the awards page" not a "random selection" and not "arbitrary"? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, looking into many other awards pages of other actors shows me, that there seems to be a consensus among the wikipedia-community on what is "major" and what is not. The selection of what a top-award is, is always the same. So I find it a good idea to be consistent and follow that selection on other pages too. Yqzuvwj (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a link to where this consensus took place on what the "major" awards are. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

No link. Just an observation you can make when reading and comparing many different awards pages on WP. - Do you have any specific objection to include the "Screen Actors Guild Award" and "BAFTA Award nomination" in the header? If so, please specify. Yqzuvwj (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The idea is to not make her bio into her awards page. There is a reason these are two separate pages. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. But then it would be better to list in the header only wins, not a really random selection of nominations. Yqzuvwj (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Oscar and Tony aren't random. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

But to exclude BAFTA is! Yqzuvwj (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I added BAFTA both in the lead and in the main. Was there in the past (2022) and was deleted be Krimuk2.0 without giving reason or reaching consensus on talk page. 131.228.32.166 (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:SOCKPUPPETRY will only lead to blocks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Krimuk2.0, unfortunately the discussion above wasn't coming to a conclusion. That's why I'm stepping now one step back:

1) The Michelle Williams article is good. For a reason it's a featured article and your contributions to it are in general very valuable.

2) Even a good article can always be improved.

3) The section on awards links to a Spinoff-Page.

4) According to WP:SPINOFF that section in the main article should be a "summary section (...) to briefly describe the content of the much more detailed subarticle(s)."

5) The subarticle differentiates between "major" and "other" awards.

6) So the summary section in the main article should reflect exactly that and list the major awards as specified in the subarticle.

7) The BAFTA-nominations were specified in the lead of the main article until you deleted that reference on 17 June 2022, 07:32, without giving any reason for doing so or reaching consensus on the talk page.

8) I hope you now find this convincing and we can now settle this dispute.

P.S.: My IP-address starts with 91.7. Please WP:AGF. Untrue accusations do not help. Yqzuvwj (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Why not add the names of all the other 30+ organisations from which she has received awards in the opening para? Actually, why split up the awards page in the first place? Add it back to this article, so everything can be mentioned in ONE page. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Why have a separate filmography page? Add all her credits to this ONE page?

Why mention only some of her films in the lead? Add ALL of them. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

And if you are looking for history, the FA-passed version of this article is this, when BAFTA was not mentioned in the opening para. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Please remain objective and respond to my arguments instead of lapsing into irony and sarcasm: WP:EQ, WP:Sarcasm_is_really_helpful.

I have already given the reasons for the right choice for the selection: 4), 5) and 6) - see above. Yqzuvwj (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe your own work convinces you more than all this discussion: I had a look on your list of your "featured articles". You include BAFTA in the lead of the articles of Catherine Zeta-Jones, Jennifer Lawrence, Amy Adams, Kate Winslet. So I'm really puzzled why you don't want to be consistent here. Yqzuvwj (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Nice of you to skip Brie Larson and Jessica Chastain in my "own work". And also skip the fact that Zeta-Jones, Lawrence, and Winslet have all won BAFTAs, while Williams has not, and that Adams' 7 BAFTA noms is a second-highest record at the ceremony. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, Williams hasn't won Oscar & Tony neither. So why name the nominations in the lead? - Could that be a conclusion of this discussion, you can agree to?: Shorten the sentence in the beginning to: "(...), she has received various accolades, including two Golden Globe Awards and a Primetime Emmy Award." Yqzuvwj (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Nope, Oscars and Tony are THE top-most awards for film and stage, respectively. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, that's a very us-american-centric view of the world. Nobody in the West End cares about the Tonys, all that matters are the Olivier Awards. And the Oscars are also on a clear downward trend. - But it's not our job to decide here. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral reflection of the reality out there. So my suggestion is either to skip all nominations or to name those which are considered - not by you or me, but by the world - to be "major". Yqzuvwj (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Michelle Williams is an American actress who works in American film, television, and stage so the article will be American-centric and not British-centric or australian-centric. Anyway, wait for others to chime in, so that WP:CONSENSUS can be gained. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

So the argument is much better and I can accept it.

Can we two agree on leaving the paragraph as it is for now, but when Michelle Williams finally wins BAFTA we will add that BAFTA-award here on her main WP-article? Yqzuvwj (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, when that happens, we will. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Perfect. Yqzuvwj (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)