Talk:Bob Hoskins

Naming non-notables
reinstated Hoskin's children's names with the edit summary:


 * "As long as they're credibly sourced, these are perfectly fine to include regardless of whether they have/warrant articles, don't just delete those simply because you don't like their inclusion."

I take issue with 's claim the names of non-notable individuals are "perfectly fine to include regardless...", and I object to the imputation that I have deleted them just because I don't like it.

Wikipedia BLP policy states in section Privacy of names:
 * "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects..."

and
 * "The names of ... family members ... may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." (My italics).

If names are particularly outlandish, say, or if there had been a court battle over them, then maybe publishing them here could be relevant to a reader's understanding of the subject. Otherwise it's just intrusive trivia. This isn't Hello magazine.

The article states that Hoskins had two children by each of his wives, which is perfectly sufficient. BRD notwithstanding, policy mandates that there be an actual rationale for naming them so I have reverted until such rationale is forthcoming. Captainllama (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Names which are sourced can go in prose in the body of the article. It is the infobox where they should not be mentioned without some other form of notability. The notion that a person(s) name(s) are intrusive trivia is not supported by policy or guidelines. Also per WP:BRD C removed them (Bold) S restored them (Revert) this thread is the discussion. Further removal should not happen until the discussion is concluded. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * MarnetteD has it right. Also, having children is a major part of one's life, so calling their names "intrusive trivia" is quite frankly absurd. This is legitimate information and WP:BLPNAME isn't an excuse to downplay well-cited identities. There is no privacy issue when their names are public knowledge. It's not like the parents tried to withhold their names from society or we're giving away people's addresses/phone numbers. I've often seen WP:BLPNAME get misconstrued as "don't include at all" for those without articles. That isn't the case as you seem to think. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)