Talk:Robert Duncan McNeill

Infobox Edit War - spouse
This needs to stop, we need to have a discussion here and take a vote on the matter of the spouse in the infobox. Please vote below.
 * Against - I don't think just because the field is there it should be used. I believe it is inteded for more high-profile spouses.  Just my opinion, and please post yours below.  The decision should be made here and should be final. 74.204.40.46 09:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In favour - The field is a valid template field and it has nothing to do with the social position of the spouse. Also, her name is on IMDB, so it's not a secret. Lots of other pages have the field, with high nor not high-profile spouse. The field completes the profile. --Andromeda 17:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Against - I agree that just because the field exists that the information should be included. There are issues concerning privacy here - absent a newsworthy or encyclopedic reason for including the spouse, I don't think the information should be included "just because we can."  It's not on the actor's website, and he talks about privacy issues regarding his family.  Absent a full justification why the information is important to McNeill's career as an actor or director, I vote to remove the info, particularly in regard to his minor children, who clearly are NOT celebrities or have taken steps to become public figures. Dcs47 (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The information is on IMDB, so it's not a secret. If it wasn't anywhere else, then yes it would raise privacy concerns, but his wife's name (not his children) is public on the BIGGEST movie site on the net. I don't see the big problem here. --Andromeda (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction: his children names ARE on IMDB too. --Andromeda (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand by my earlier comments. Again, the justification comes down to "because the field's in the box," or "someone else has already invaded their privacy."  Provide a basis that is encylopedic - that the spouse and minor children are newsworthy, or have independently sought celebrity.


 * In favour - to me it appears dsc47 edits under many different IP addresses, each time removing this public information, and I find that name/ip address shuffle to be dishonest. I wonder, does the editor know this person personally and is the editor acting on that person's behalf? --209.64.188.57 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't have a problem with the information being provided, so long as it's accompanied by a reliable, verifiable source. Wikipedia does not consider imdb to be a reliable source. Nightscream (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Against: The question is not, why should it not be included, the question is why should it be included. The name of a spouse makes sense in an article if he or she is a person of public interest, i.e. a celebrity of some kind, his- or herself. Otherwise protection of privacy is more important. And how does it make sense for the reader of an article to have some name thrown at him? His wife doesn't have an article of her own on imdb. That imdb mentions her name anyway is their problem. OK, her name seems to be no secret, but does it have to be presented to the public on a silver tablet?--Sylvia Anna (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 *  Another in favour - this is an encyclopedia. It should contain relevant information.  It is not a question as to whether or not she is relevant to public discourse, but whether the fact that he is married is relevant to the actor.  The person he is married to is material to the person of note.  This is not seeking information that is not itself subject to public discourse; nobody is requesting medical records or anything that the person of note has not spoken about in public.  Privacy can be protected by more than simply not acknowledging the information.  It is a violation of privacy to give detailed information regarding the spouse.  It is not a violation of privacy to simply note that a person of interest is married to someone, and then give that person's first name.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawdude2010 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

edit request
editprotected No great urgency, but I'm tidying up Category:Juilliard School people to move people to appropriate sub-cats where possible, and changing his category to Category:Juilliard School alumni isn't something I can currently do, given page protection. Thanks, Bencherlite 23:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

edit request 2
editprotected For reasons stated in above section "Infobox Edit War - spouse", please add public information (spouse) to infobox. --137.254.4.7 (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Directing work in 2010
Since this is still protected, can someone else include a mention of his directing the season one finale of V? 66.36.145.118 (talk) 04:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just sign in for an account and write that info in. It's free, takes seconds, and still allows you to remain anonymous, while giving the community the ability to distinguish you from others with the same IP. Remember, Be Bold! :-) Nightscream (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC).