Talk:Michelle Williams on screen and stage

Bad faith tags in the name of "improvement"

I wonder what editors such as Musdan77 get by placing bad faith tags on articles that have actually been improved by more constructive editors? Such a waste for the ones who are here to improve the encyclopedia! The article follows the standards set by FL-class lists of celebrity filmographies, and is currently at the FLC. Impossible to do so when editors such as Musdan77 try to hinder progress. Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"inexperienced editor"? I have more experience than you - but that's beside the point. It looks like you still don't know what bad faith (or good faith) is. Did you learn nothing from our discussion? And you need to learn about WP:ROWN and WP:REVEXP, as well as WP:OWN. Your complete reversion showed far more "bad faith" than my edit. A basic WP policy (not just a guideline) is WP:Consensus - collaborating, working together with editors, not just reverting an edit back to your version (especially without giving a valid reason). That is showing bad faith. If you just gave one reason for reverting, that would show a little bit of good faith. But, you're not interested in following guidelines or policy; you just want to rack up another FA to show off on your user page. I hope those who review FLs read this and see that my edit was a definite improvement. But, then again, they apparently don't know or don't care about what MOS say - particularly WP:LEAD. For one thing, a list article is for lists, not prose. That's what the bio page is for. When we start a filmography page, we don't keep a filmography table on the bio page, so why would we have so much repetition in the lead? Sure there should be a lead, but it only needs to be one, maybe two, short paragraphs, to give an overall view. Also, in all lead sections, there shouldn't be any citations, unless it "is challenged or likely to be challenged, or direct quotations". —Musdan77 (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

LOL, it's laughable how little you know about lists. Pray, familiarise yourself with them at WP: FL. Oh, and your superiority complex is admirable. You claim to know more about FLs than people who have actually written and reviewed FLs. Just wow! ;) Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

And again, you don't discuss, you just attack - as usual. Of course, I've seen WP: FL. Just because an article has been called "featured", doesn't mean that it's according to MOS. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

If an article is not according to MOS it cannot be a WP:FL. Think a little. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You obviously still have not read the MOS(es) that I've linked to. Even when I give a direct quote, you ignore/dismiss it. —Musdan77 (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

As you've been advised at the FLC, please WP:DROPIT. Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You want me to "drop it" (1) so you would have the last word, and (2) because you have not been able to actually respond to anything that I've said. On the talk page that you linked to, we find FrB.TG and I having an actual discussion and then working together to come to an understanding. That's in far contrast to what we have here. You ask me to drop it; I ask you to apologize - for making a false claim about me and falsely accusing me (just as you did on my talk page). I could have reported you (both times) at WP:ANI, but I didn't. Also, you still haven't given one reason for reverting my edit. So, I could have reverted it back - but I'm not like that (it's better to discuss). —Musdan77 (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, congratulations on blatantly self-promoting yourself as an awesome human-being. I am not volunteering here to showcase my humanity, and my only goal is to improve the encyclopedia. Secondly, it was an uninvolved third-party editor who asked you to "drop it", so you can stop blaming me for not getting your way. Thirdly, I will not be intimidated by your threats. If anyone has an ANI coming, its you. And finally, I have better ways to contribute to this website than by indulging in futile debates with editors who invoke guidelines without even understanding them themselves. Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

1) You really need to learn how to interact better with others. That's part of being a WP editor. It's not an option. Incivility - especially attacking, as you have, can get you blocked. I normally would only talk to another editor like this on their talk page, but you started it here by mentioning my name and slandering it. I don't know why you think when someone is attacked like that they wouldn't stand up for themselves. (2) Your second point doesn't really make sense. You did say "drop it", and you did revert me without a valid reason. (3) A discussion (on the issues) doesn't have to be a debate, but you won't even do that. If I don't understand something then enlighten me (if you're so much smarter than me). —Musdan77 (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 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. Most editors in the discussion note that Michelle Williams (singer) § Filmography is not substantial enough to be split into a separate article, which makes disambiguating this page unnecessary. Some commenters prefer not to use parenthetical disambiguation in the middle of the article title. To eliminate possible confusion, I've added the {{About}} hatnote to this article, which contains a link to Michelle Williams (singer) § Filmography, as suggested by IJBall. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 17:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Michelle Williams on screen and stage → Michelle Williams (actress) on screen and stage – The subject which this article refers is allocated at Michelle Williams (actress), the article Michelle Williams is a disambiguation page, and Michelle Williams (singer) has also acted and has a list of filmography at Michelle Williams (singer)#Filmography. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Clunky, though. Mid-title parentheses are ugly. Suggest considering disambiguating both Michelle Williams by their middle names. Michelle Williams (actress) —> Michelle Ingrid Williams. Thus Michelle Ingrid Williams on screen and stage. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Proposed at Talk:Michelle_Williams_(actress)#Requested_move_6_December_2019. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose middle name usage; Support some kind of change. A sub-page of a topic should use the same title of the topic, not use a different title. Unless the actress article changes as well, there is absolutely no reason to add her middle name here. Regarding original proposal, I do agree that since Michelle Williams (singer)#Filmography exists, a redirect such as Michelle Williams filmography (which should be moved) could be just as valid to it as it is to here. However, I have an issue with the disambiguation of "actress" - any person acting in a film, TV or stage production is an "actor", even the singer. A different disambiguation should be used in my opinion. --Gonnym (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree, sub-pages should carry the same title. My support for middle name disambiguation (very standard real world natural disambiguation) depends on it being accepted for the parent page.

Importantly, the current is not ok. Something has to be done. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least for now. Only the actress has a significant enough "screen and stage" career to warrant a separate article about that. Should the singers "screen and stage" career become significant enough to warrant such an article for her (which I admit is not unlikely), then we would have a disambiguity to resolve. But then we would have to reconsider the current disambiguators (actress and singer) as well, though I strongly oppose disambiguating by middle name when that's not part of a COMMONNAME for the subject in question. --В²C ☎ 23:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC) --В²C ☎ 23:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – The other Michelle Williams has no such page, so there is ZERO need for clunky disambiguation. We disambiguate only when there are identically titled articles. There's absolutely no requirement for this page to have disambiguation simply because the subject's main article needs it. Disambiguation should be a last resort. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • ...For the sake of WP:TITLECON: The result of Talk:Film industry in Georgia (U.S. state)#Requested move 22 November 2019 contradicts this statement. Steel1943 (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Except... WP:OTHERSTUFF. Station1 was the only one who got it right there. That really needs to be revisited. Film industry in Georgia is not a U.S. state, as the current title absurdly suggests. There is no article about the film industry in the nation of Georgia, so there was no need to disambiguate. That was a really bad decision. Going on my list, User:Born2cycle#Bad RM decisions. --В²C ☎ 01:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
      • IMO, WP:TITLECON beats WP:OTHERSTUFF since an encyclopedia should have consistent article titles. Steel1943 (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
        • I don't disagree in general, but the practice of using a disambiguated title in a sub-title verbatim is too rare for TITLECON to apply. That's why OTHERSTUFF applies to the one (dubious) example provided here. --В²C ☎ 02:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Joeyconnick. Station1 (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose preemptive disambiguation. Worst-case scenario: just add a hatnote to Michelle Williams (singer)#Filmography (which is another garbage, incorrectly-formatted "Filmography" table anyway), though I lean against even doing that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • While her TV appearances do seem not notable, her stage performances include 3 Broadway musicals. That's pretty notable. --Gonnym (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Definitely, but there is not enough to warrant a separate "on screen and stage" for the one primarily known as a singer, so there is no conflict to resolve with disambiguation. For another example, consider The Paris News. By the convention suggested by this proposal that article would be at The Paris, Texas News. Or perhaps since that's so obviously wrong, The Paris (Texas) News, which is only slightly better, and about as bad as the proposed title in this case. But we don't do either because there is no other article with the title The Paris News. Similarly here where there is no other Michelle Williams on the screen and stage article. --В²C ☎ 17:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any notion of plunking a parenthetical term into the middle of any title. This goes against the whole purpose of both common-name usage and descriptive phrases as titles; both should be natural English constructions. No (decent) English writing puts a noun in parentheses between another noun and a prepositional phrase. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gonnym, В²C, Joeyconnick, Station1, IJBall and Sangdeboeuf. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  ...@Roman Spinner: Just FYI, Gonnym did not oppose the request, even though the word "oppose" is in their comment. Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  I appreciate the correction and have stricken Gonnym's name from my above list of "Oppose" votes. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:32, 10 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.