Phil Collins is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 13, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 11, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 20, 2006 Peer review Reviewed February 15, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted January 31, 2010 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance). Rock music High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Percussion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Percussion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Percussion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PercussionWikipedia:WikiProject PercussionTemplate:WikiProject PercussionPercussion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Progressive Rock Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Disney Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia Pop music High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

In the Mark Lawson interview mentioned, Collins says that he did not have a home in Norfolk, and that he didn't particularly like Norfolk. The Telegraph article cited also mentions him divorcing his second wife by fax which is something he has repeatedly denied, so it may be that the passing comments in that article were not fully researched. -- Beardo (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following an edit war on the articles of his children (specifically Joely, Simon and Lily), I'm starting this discussion in hopes of finding consensus on the correct way of describing how these three of his children are related to one another.

The situation is as follows: Phil adopted his first wife's daughter Joely and then had a bioligical song with that same first wife. This makes him Joely's adoptive father and Simon's father, while Joely and Simon are maternal half siblings. Then Phil had a second daughter, Lily, with his second wife. That makes here the adoptive sister of Joely and the paternal half sister of Simon.

And that is the way I tried to correctly describe them in their articles tonight, per our own article siblings. However, there is one user who just keeps reverting every user trying to change this information and whom I resultlessly tried to discuss with on their talk page.

So therefore I start this discussion in the hope of finding consensus with the input of other editors.

For courtesy I will ping the other users who I'm aware of who made edits on the subject (@Yours6700, @Untamed1910, @2601:580:c180:22d0:e801:13e8:f180:d2f, @2001:9b0:46::b4d5:2bcd). If I missed any please ping them here as well.

Note that due to partial blocks issued while the edit war was ensuing, the articles of Simon and Lily are now in the state in line with my above proposal, while Joely's isn't.Tvx1 00:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC) Tvx1 00:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See original discussion at Talk:Joely Collins § Relationship Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The details of the relationships are in the articles in the "Personal life section". It is fully correct to drop the "adoptive-", "adopted-", "half-" and "step-" modifiers from the relationship descriptions and just refer to the people as they refer to each other. Some adopted people and adoptive parents find the labels offensive and demeaning and never think of their close family that way. It is also unnecessary to do so in a bio article particularly when the details are fully covered in the article with the proper context and explanations. The articles were correct and no information was missing before the changes. There is no compelling reason to add the somewhat demeaning labels. Adoption creates real legal and emotional family links. The links to the bio parent are legally broken with their permission so no longer exist. The bio info is basically trivia that does not need to be in the infobox or lead. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should start making judgements of what is and what is not demeaning to someone. That's POV that we cannot quantify. Moreover, I struggle to see how just describing information accurately and neutrally could be construeer as demeaming. Also, I do not see how you can think that doing things like ignoring Joely Collins' biological father exists is any less demeaning. You need to understand that you are not writing and editing these articles for yourself, but for a general audience. So we need to write what is accurate and non-confusing for all readers, not only what is right in your eyes. Lastly you keep demonstrating a very poor every understanding of the subject do not. Your claim that adoptions always completely break any link with the biological parents is quite patently FALSE. There are various kinds of adoptions and some allow links with the original legal parent(s) to remain. I really don't know what it will take for you to finally accept and also to consider the posibility that you could be wrong here. Stop being so stubborn!

But I really want to see other people weigh in here now.Tvx1 01:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation at WP:BRD should have been followed and this and the other articles returned to the state before the dispute started per WP:STATUSQUO and a discussion started when the initial edit was reverted. I see this as a WP:BLP issue that needs discussion and consensus before changes are made. The article was correct and complete before the changes were made.

Nothing is being ignored, the full details are in the article along with context. I object to adding the unnecessary modifiers in the infobox and lead - they are not used in normal adoptive relationships, and seldom used by most families when talking about each other. And yes some people find them demeaning as it implies a lesser level of relationship. See Language of adoption. The descriptions there are correct without them. Adoption changes who the legal guardian is, modern adoptions may permit some knowledge and acknowledgment of who the bio-parents are and give them some rights to interact with their bio-kids. It is not the same as fostering. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually read what you are citing. WP:STATUSQUO is an essay and thuis does not override things WP:EW and WP:3RR. Hence why you were blocked from editing these pages as well. Your reverts were just as wrong. Also read m:THEWRONGVERSION

The article wasn't any less "correct" but certainly more complete with my edits. My edit didn't even all concern the adoptive relations in this family. What you personally consider to be straightforward and logical doesn't necessarily mean it is too for everyone possible reader of world. Your claim about what is the normal way to describe adoptive relationships is just a personal opinion and not the way how every person in the world sees that. Hence why it doesn't match at all what is explained in our sibling article. Almost all readers take terms like full and half sibling to mean a biological sibling. The way you insist the articles should be written thus created potential confusion. This is not an informal family gathering, but an encyclopedia and thus we should use non-confusing encylopedic language and remain consistent with other articles. Tvx1 02:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]