Jump to content

Talk:Rosie O'Donnell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Information on adopted daughter is woefully anemic

[edit]

There was a lot of drama and press regarding the relationship between Rosie O'Donnell and her adopted daughter, Chelsea. The feud between the two were public and were reported by People Magazine, which Wikipedia approves sources from. I think the fact that she chose to move out of her adopted mother's home and live back with her biological mother ("She also chose to move out of her family’s New York house and into the home of her biological mother, Wisconsin resident Deanna Micoley.") is noteworthy. The entire article chronicles the situation and should rightfully be included. 2601:642:4100:820:1C59:4176:5C9A:E69F (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding?! This entire article is the most 'wordy' entry I have ever read on Wiki! Let's recount everything and detail of MY life and it would take up endless pages! 74.137.16.4 (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Party

[edit]

Is it appropriate that the infobox mentions a political party? It's not wrong that she expressed support for the Democratic party and it's fine to mention it in the text, but she's not a politician, and I'd expect the party to be mentioned in the infobox only in articles about actual politicians. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

/Objectively, yet sensitively, describing the death of her mother

Rosie's Cameo in BFDI

[edit]

On January 1st, BFDIA 17 released and in that episode Rosie O'Donnell and one of her kids, Clay O'Donnnell, appeared in cameo roles voice acting as Spool and Mirror respectively. I'm aware of "Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?" but not long at all after that episode came out an editor immediately went to this page and added a hidden editor-only message saying "DO NOT add Battle for Dream Island here" which to me feels unnecessary and very much biased against BFDI.

Surely the idea of "this person was in this thing" should be documented on a persons page page, regardless of Wikipedia's "measure of notability" determining that BFDI isn't able to have an impartial page due to lack of news coverage. It's also worth pointing out that Rosie currently on her page has appearances in media listed that appear to not have Wikipedia pages. Would that not be bias against BFDI to include those other not notable things but exclude BFDI for no reason other than an apparent dislike towards BFDI from at least a fair few regular Wikipedia editors? (I've read everything on the talk page of the BFDI essay. You cannot deny that there are a fair few Wikipedia editors that actively dislike BFDI. Even if it is for somewhat justifiable reasons such as young BFDI fans making edits that other editors have to clean up that is still bias, and Wikipedia should not be biased.)

Also something else I've just thought about while writing this. I'm not sure if Wikipedia has specific rules in place for what should or should not be mentioned in a list of things a person has been in but if such a thing does not exist it might be a good idea to make such rules. ZestySourBoy (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure what the current stance is on these things.... originally I would have pointed to Tomska's article, as for a good few months now a mention of his acting role in BFDIA was included, however it seems with the new year and him appearing in another episode there is a new editing dispute going on that has yet to be resolved. Even then, a mention on Rosie's page would not have much ground to stand on, since unlike Tom, there does not appear to be any direct post from Rosie herself confirming her involvement in the project. 47.147.64.38 (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also you guys have currently put it in the Television section of her Filmography, which is not correct. If it were to be included it would have to be under Web Series by itself, and IDK how other editors would feel about adding an entire section there just to mention what is already a contentious subject. 47.147.64.38 (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding in what section it should be put on or what the source should be, is there any reason why the role in BFDI shouldn't be included? If any more experience editor could point out to the WP: policy that would indicate as such instead of just outright editing the source to add a comment against it without further notes or discussion HEObdip (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, perhaps. ObserveOwl (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous other actors/voice actors/etc that have projects listed in their lists of things they've been in that have no source listed so that doesn't seem to matter. Again the BFDI blacklist and WP:BFDI page are only there to prevent pages being made due to lack of impartial sources and Wikipedia assessed nobility and then to explain why that is, they do not exist to ban BFDI ever being mentioned in any context, there is no reason not to include BFDI elsewhere unless it is bias. ZestySourBoy (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other filmography entries can be verified by checking the rest of the article or by watching the credits of each episode. These episodes seem to be broadcasted by reputable companies, so the credits should be reliable. But it is a bit iffy for BFDI, a self-published web series, to claim that such a notable actor took part in it, and cite just that. Maybe if the role can be verified on Rosie's website or social media linked from that page, it could pass verifiability standards. That's what I personally think, at least, from my interpretation of policy. ObserveOwl (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately her website hasn't been updated since 2020. There is proof of Rosie and Clay speaking with the creators of BFDI however she has made many posts about BFDI on her social media:
A TikTok from Rosie about visiting the Jacknjellify animator house with Clay in 2024 [1]
A TikTok from Rosie where she mentions more details about the aforementioned Jacknjellify visit with Clay [2]
A TikTok from Rosie where she mentions working on a Battle for Dream Island documentary [3]
A TikTok where Rosie and Clay mention their plans to go to the BFDI & II 2023 Meetup [4]
An Instagram post from Rosie about her and Clay going to the BFDI & II 2023 Meetup [5]
There are countless other posts from Rosie about BFDI but I only included the ones that had examples of Rosie having interactions with the Jacknjellify crew. ZestySourBoy (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves states that the series itself should not be sourced for information on exceptional claims or third-parties. Given those posts, though, I guess the series itself is clearly associated with her, making the claim less exceptional or third-party and more or less appropriate with that source. It would still be ideal for one of the accounts to make a direct statement about their subsequent role.
But honestly, I'd say that the filmography section should be a bit more selective and less indiscriminate. There's already an IMDb link at the bottom of the page if readers want to know about more roles. That being said... I don't know how the filmography would select the works, other than through what independent reliable sources say. I don't really know about established practice surronding selected filmographies. A post at WT:ACTOR might bring editors that know more than me about this to the discussion. ObserveOwl (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean there is also a Jacknjellify community post that further confirms the cameo roles from BFDIA 17 [6]
Would that count for anything?
I'll try looking for more Rosie posts and I'll also post something at WT:ACTOR like you suggested. ZestySourBoy (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After doing some research I have now found a news article that mentions Rosie, Clay, and Battle for Dream Island. [7]. It is a pretty brief mention but it's the second news article I know of that could potentially add to BFDI's overall notability (the first being that partial notability article that talked about the 2024 BFDI & II Tour)
From what I can tell it is very likely that BFDI is mentioned else where in other news articles that talk about Clay O'Donnell. I'm gonna keep looking for more but in the meantime should I link this article that mentions BFDI on the WP:BFDI talk page so that it can be considered for Battle for Dream Island's overall notability? ZestySourBoy (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am Gregory House. By your precarious logic, John Waters, by my extreme wealth of knowledge, has never mentioned his own cameo in Helluva Boss, which is also a self-published web series, as it was created by and uploaded by VivziePop. Therefore, that would also have to be deleted. However, I will also note that Helluva Boss is more mainstream, therefore, it is of a higher validity. But I will also say both situations are extremely similar. Goodbye, from Gregory House. Gregory House, M.D. played by Hugh Laurie (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#What about other content? I'm not arguing whether it should be included in that other case as I don't know much information about it. You could remove it or argue for removal on another talk page if you want. ObserveOwl (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am Gregory House. I shall consider. Gregory House, M.D. played by Hugh Laurie (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look and there is independent reliable sourcing for Waters's role. This is not the case for BFDI. ObserveOwl (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you not seen the links I provided? You have yet to comment on them. ZestySourBoy (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a volunteer project, I can address the issues I feel like. I'm thinking about it. ObserveOwl (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise. I did not mean for that to sound like an attack. I only worded it like that because you said "This is not the case for BFDI". ZestySourBoy (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All good. :) When I said that, I was referring to coverage that is reliable and independent from the actor or series, excluding social media posts. Unlike Helluva Boss, BFDI hasn't attracted that kind of coverage, so it's a different scenario. ObserveOwl (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So we aren't able to use credits from the original work or confirmation from the actor on their social media? Does that mean that my links from Rosie's social media wouldn't count? Not every role in every series is documented on news articles or interviews though, even when it comes to popular, important, or mainstream media, so this system seems a bit iffy in my opinion. ZestySourBoy (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said. Helluva Boss is notable and got lots of coverage, so we can use independent sources to verify roles. In BFDI's case, we have to rely on official social media posts. Again, I never said we can't use them, just that the circumstances are different. ObserveOwl (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see now, I understand. Again I apologise for my misunderstandings. Wikipedia is very complicated compared to what I'm used to on Fandom wikias (suppose that makes sense when your dealing with something that is as important as Wikipedia). Hopefully one of those links works for a source for Rosie's work on BFDI and if not I can try looking for more. As I said Rosie has spoken about BFDI way too many times on her social media and she does frequent 10-20 minute long TikTok rants that has who knows what in them. ZestySourBoy (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically just not sharing information about a person's voice acting work due to a bias against a web series Ceres Junk Soaps (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@.weakepideoh: I request that you provide the specific Wikipedia policy that says that only content that has articles can be added to a works section (filmography, discography, etc.). Because to my knowledge, that is completely false. Even the style guideline for these kinds of tables shows examples that don't have articles. All your edit history seems to demonstrate to me is a bias against BFDI, proved by this edit where you removed BFDI from TomSka's appearances section even when it was sourced. A primary source can be considered acceptable for this, even though they're not exactly preferred. λ NegativeMP1 18:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah TomSka's credit is undeniable. He has a Twitter post from before his first cameo talking about the idea of being on BFDI. He has Twitter post from after his first cameo talking about being in the episode. He wrote a comment on the episode itself talking about the episode and how he was in it. And TomSka even confirmed that the community post Jacknjellify made of an image of a mystery voice actor was an image of him. Removing TomSka's BFDI credit is bias, plain and simple. ZestySourBoy (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @NegativeMP1, this is a very clear bias against BFDI. Works without a article being listed in past work tables exist all over Wikipedia. As long as they're sourced in some way it should be completely acceptable, and making a exception only against BFDI is just plain bias. Kaixvny (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, people on Wikipedia act like even saying the acronym will end the world, the idea of "this person was in this thing" should be documented, even if that thing doesnt have a wikipedia page. I get why it has no article, but completely barring the mention of BFDI or object shows in general on wikipedia tells me there is some bias against BFDI AmericanAccount704 (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also there is ZERO consensus of no mentioning BFDI in articles, plenty of other roles have no wikipedia page yet are listed on this page, so why is BFDI different? AmericanAccount704 (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Likely because of BFDI's already negative reputation on the site, so therefor it is scrutinized far more than other pieces of media would be. That being said it feels like a consensus on the matter had already been reached months ago so it feels odd to suddenly come back and rekindle the debate again (in reference to the recent edits on Tomska's page). 47.147.64.38 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean... that is literally the definition of bias... and that is literally against the rules of Wikipedia. ZestySourBoy (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why the TomSka article has BFDIA 17 and TPOT 15 mentioned is because unlike this article, It has more sufficient references, unlike Rosie O'Donnell. It would also make more sense for BFDI not to be included in this article because it is very out of line compared to other works in the same table. This is a solid argument. - WinterJunpei :3 20:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) (copy and pasted from earlier argument)[reply]
why cant we just have bfdi as apart of the website? like isnt wikipedia the website to hold literally everything or whatever? also who really cares if it “doesnt have credible sources” some people need to just deal with it.
just because youre a mod or admin doesnt mean you rule the world. your biases dont matter just because you have some little title so you can say that youre better than everyone else because youre not. Parsleymeow (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
like isnt wikipedia the website to hold literally everything or whatever? No. just because youre a mod or admin doesnt mean you rule the world. None of the editors on this discussion are admins. ObserveOwl (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok well sure wikipedia wont have LITERALLY everything but it should still have like actual shows (or "shows") having an actual page, and still properly crediting stuff on rosie o'donnell's or tomska's page or else that page isnt accurate 24.49.53.197 (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All shows/pages on Wikipedia must pass notability guidelines per WP:Notability, though I agree that BFDI should be credited on these peoples pages, even if it doesn't have a article. Kaixvny (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsleymeow, Hello! While I agree that BFDI should have not been removed from this article, it does have a decently valid reason of why its not on Wikipedia (WP:BFDI), also as @ObserveOwl stated, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and everything should be notable. That is a rule EVERY page on here has to follow. (WP:NOT) ^_^ Kaixvny (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that there are some shows/movies on this page and many others that don't have articles. Should we also delete those shows from these articles as well? 2600:1700:3B7E:8800:9542:87A2:FF26:C3B8 (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Work section mentions do not need to have Wikipedia articles as long as they're properly sourced, like NegitiveMP1 mentioned, the style template for these types of tables ALSO includes works without articles. Kaixvny (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

-Hi, I'm here to say that BFDI deserves a page, since if Hawk Tuah and Skibidi Toilet got a page, then so should Battle For Dream Island- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Servalent (talk • contribs) 05:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there isn't enough mainstream articles to where Wikipedia considers BFDI relevant still, while those specific topics managed to get tremendous industry coverage almost immediately. It's frustrating that a rather influential series doesn't have enough media coverage to earn an article to the point where it's almost a running joke, but that is how it is. SpeedrunnerInTraining (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why the TomSka article has BFDIA 17 and TPOT 15 mentioned is because unlike this article, It has more sufficient references, unlike Rosie O'Donnell. It would also make more sense for BFDI not to be included in this article because it is very out of line compared to other works in the same table. This is a solid argument. - WinterJunpei :3 19:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear case of bias against BFDI, enough said. AmericanAccount704 (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: BFDI inclusion in Filmography section

[edit]

Should this article's Filmography section include the web series Battle for Dream Island? Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional thoughts: It seems like the exclusion of BFDI from this article's Filmography section has attracted a lot of attention from people who are unfamiliar with the existing standards and policies of Wikipedia—in particular, BFDI fans who already feel that Wikipedia has a substantial bias against the series itself due to the lack of a BFDI article, per the reasons laid out in WP:BFDI. However, I think the question of whether or not to include the series is of legitimate merit, because this is a case where the reasoning of WP:BFDI is not fully sufficient. Even if the series itself has not received enough coverage from reliable secondary sources to merit an entire article, I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that it can still be listed briefly on the articles of the people who worked on it. For example, lots of musicians have albums listed in their "Discography" sections that are themselves too obscure for their own articles.
I'm genuinely on the fence, and I think an RfC will be a good way to stimulate productive discussion on sourcing and make people feel heard about this issue. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have had this discussion a few times before regarding this very subject actually, specifically on the pages for Kevin MacLeod and TomSka. In the case of the latter however, there still seems to be some dispute over whether or not the sources provided are suitable enough to merit its mention on the page, as the only sources available are his credit within the show itself and Twitter/X posts from him confirming his involvement. It should be noted that, to my knowledge, there still isn't any definitive claim from Rosie herself that she starred in a role for this particular episode like Tom has made, along with the fact that she's a far more prominent figure and therefor her page would be under more scrutiny. That is at least how I see it. 47.147.64.38 (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it should, there is a clear bias against BFDI, there is no consensus on not mentioning BFDI on any page, so it should be added. Also, there is many things Rosie O'Donnell was in that is listed here that DON'T have their own wikipedia pages yet no one seems to complain about those. AmericanAccount704 (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doing this is like banning making a page about Nashville because you had a bad experience. AmericanAccount704 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include only if it can be sourced by secondary sources. Skimming the discussion above, it seems like people are treating Battle for Dream Island (whatever that is) as forbidden as well as some sort of confusion between notability (which BFDI seems not to be) and noteworthiness, which only external secondary sources can determine. Content is not forbidden in Wikipedia as long as it is verifiable. (CC) Tbhotch™ 01:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include if it can be sourced by secondary sources per Tbhotch. I cannot better his comments. (Summoned by bot). Arguments above about whether WP is/is not biased against BFDI or web series in general are a bit of a waste of time and space. Content needs to be verifiable but whether or not R O'D appeared in this web series, is only tangentially connected to whether the series is notable enough to have an article. Pincrete (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. While BDFI has consensus on not being notable, that doesn't mean that appearances in them should not be mentioned. Example #1 in WP:FILMOGRAPHY has an unsourced credit to two non-bluelinked television shows. O'Donnell's page also has non-bluelinked entries in her filmography section. An extreme example of this would be Sean Chiplock, who has appeared in several very notable titles, along with several non-notable titles sourced to himself or the credits. As always, better sourcing gives stronger weight to inclusion. SWinxy (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Include. BDFI itself doesn't meet notability standards, however it would be best to list the appearance anyway. SpeedrunnerInTraining (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rosie_O%27Donnell&oldid=1267612561"