Talk:Larry Miller (comedian)

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

Stages?[edit]

Why is the routine referred to as "Five Stages Of Drinking" when Miller constantly talks of "levels" during the act? Maikel (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's actually 'Six Levels Of Drinking', but only if you live in a trailer park, and anyway, there's no time to go into that now. 12.75.233.163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Wikitable[edit]

Something is wrong with the wikitable for filmography. --Jeppes pung (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: unbundle into separate move requests. -- tariqabjotu 07:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– per WP:CRITERIA: recognizability, and following previous similar RMs. Bundled for convenience given generic problems with the (entertainer) dab. There are articles out there where "(entertainer)" really is the best choice, but these ones fall on the side of increased precision being beneficial, and where current title doesn't tell the reader that Larry Miller isn't a rapper, and Gretchen isn't a pornstar. Feel free to express partial support/oppose/neutral. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have my doubts that bundling this move request is the best way to go. Maybe, in theory, consensus could be reached that "(entertainer)" is always a bad way to title an article, and all articles titled that way should be moved to another title. But my understanding is that that's not what you're proposing; you've personally looked at every article with "(entertainer)", and evaluated that it is not the best way to title these specific articles, and chosen what you think is the best new title for each. If you've evaluated each article individually, why should we discuss them as one large group? It seems quite possible that many people will be familiar with only one or a few of these articles, and won't review the others, resulting in either a mess of partial votes for individual articles that someone will have to sort out, or blanket "support all" or "oppose all" votes that aren't informed on all the proposals. There may be considerable disagreement and discussion of some of the titles you've proposed (since, if the alternative to "entertainer" was obvious, "entertainer" probably would not have been used in the first place), making the discussion even more convoluted. Maybe I'm wrong and nobody will really care about any of these (the only one I have an interest in is Larry Miller and I don't really care either way if it's "(entertainer)" or "(comedian)"), but this isn't how I'd advise setting up the discussion. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Theoldsparkle, I appreciate those comments. This is the third and I expect last of bundled RMs of this sort, apart from a cluster of Korean boyband (entertainer) articles. Otherwise the ones left at "(entertainer)" are either genuinely entertainers in the vaudeville, comedy-magician, burlesque, drag-queen, or where the dab is simply perplexing. FWIW I took time with Larry Miller weighing "comedian Larry Miller" against "actor Larry Miller" ("entertainer Larry Miller" was zero), most of the others were immediately obvious and easy. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; "(entertainer)" is always a bad way to title an article, and all articles titled that way should be moved to another title. I suppose there will never be a consensus for moving certain present articles, but they are still wrong. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Larry Miller: "Entertainer" is a vague catchall term that can apply to virtually anyone in the popular arts. I suppose there are some specialized acts that fall into no other clear category and for which "entertainer" would be appropriate, but that's not the case with Larry Miller. I think each of the other cases need to be examined indvidually.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mass RM. As per Theoldsparkle and Tenebrae. Whether "(entertainer)" is appropriate should be a case-by-case analysis. Dohn joe (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dohn Joe, in previous RMs, which reverted these (entertainer) dabs you were repeatedly offered analysis showing that "entertainer NAME" was 0% 2% 3% of printed sources, compared to "singer NAME" at 80% 90% or so, and yet you still opposed, so from previous RMs I understand your objection to be a MOS issue that a parenthetical dab should be as wide an umbrella as possible, but that is against WP:CRITERIA. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ones not noted a simple click on the article makes the case. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, it's much too unwieldy to present stats and make cogent arguments on 19 different people whose only connection is that they share a Wikipedia disambiguator. Let each one be considered on its own merits. Dohn joe (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's exactly the point, that this is what they have in common, putting them together (a) demonstrates how unworkable and imprecise, and how unsupported in sources the disambiguator (entertainer) is. (b) by grouping together 19 people who have either been moved to or created at what is in effect a Wikipedia-ism, it allows editors who don't want to have to repeat the same comment 19 times on 19 RMs. Have you even looked at any of the articles? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed. Some I agree with, some I would oppose, some I probably wouldn't even comment on. I imagine other editors feel the same way. Dohn joe (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why the header says
"Feel free to express partial support/oppose/neutral."
This has gone out on the Talk pages of all 19 articles. So far you seem to be the only editor who supports (entertainer) per se. We had a bundled RM at Talk:Craig Owens (singer) for John Bohlinger (musician) Sean Anthony (rapper) Jamie Walters (singer) Matt Thompson (film director) Thomas McCarthy (actor) Teller (magician) Dick Brooks (magician) Kirsten Price (pornographic actress) Lizzy Borden (pornographic actress) Aja (pornographic actress) Taylor Hayes (pornographic actress) Marcus Collins (actor) Marcus Phillips (musician) rather easier than separately at Talk:Mario (American singer), Talk:Pitbull (rapper) etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also Talk:Sinbad (comedian) and others In ictu oculi (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Larry Miller. I already objected above to the mass RM. On Miller himself, I oppose because even the nom expressed some doubt whether "comedian" or "actor" were a better dab. Why choose, when "entertainer" is a sufficient umbrella term to cover both? If you choose "comedian", then we ignore the subject's notable acting career needlessly. Dohn joe (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that might be opening up tricky territory. Virtually all of his acting has been in comedies, or in comic roles. And virtually all notable comedians find themselves acting in movies or on TV. Jay Leno even once played a gun-toting bad guy in a movie. I think article disambigs are supposed to represent what someone is primarily (not exclusively) known for, and Miller I'd certainly think is known primarily as a comedian. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dohn Joe, the nom (myself) did not "express some doubt" what I said was "FWIW I took time with Larry Miller weighing "comedian Larry Miller" against "actor Larry Miller" ("entertainer Larry Miller" was zero)," - what that means is what it says, I took time with Larry Miller weighing "comedian Larry Miller" against "actor Larry Miller" and the result was very clearly Larry Miller (comedian). The Jay Leno point by User:Tenebrae illustrates exactly why we should follow what printed sources say rather than just assign entertainer. If we assign (entertainer) to every comedian who has ever acted, to every actor who has sung, to every singer who has danced we can remove every (singer) (actor) (comedian) dab on en.wp and replace them all with (entertainer). But to do so would be counter WP:CRITERIA.
And also counter the principle viewed in WP:COMMONNAME in effect, the fact that printed sources don't use "entertainer" for any of these individuals is a fairly strong indication that en.wp readers are also not going to search "entertainer" - they will search "singer" "comedian" "pornographic actress" and so on - because they will search according to real world usage. We give weight to WP:COMMONNAME for one half of the title, why should we do the opposite in the parenthetical section? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • reached Backlog - just a note as proposer that I can see this having reached the end of 7 days and have no preference as to whether this is relisted or to be broken up into 19 separate RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Miller (entertainer) → Larry Miller (comedian) – (unbundled as requested) Per WP:CRITERIA: "entertainer" (singular) in print sources is normally used for someone who combines singing and comedy etc in the same show, such as burlesque, vaudeville, Las Vegas show, or cabaret artists. In this case Larry Miller is clearly known as a comedian, which includes, as for almost all comedians, roles as a comedy actor. Results:"comedian Larry Miller" against "actor Larry Miller" ("entertainer Larry Miller" was zero). In ictu oculi (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support; "(entertainer)" is always a bad way to title an article, and all articles titled that way should be moved to another title. I suppose there will never be a consensus for moving certain present articles, but they are still wrong. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: "Entertainer" is a vague catchall term that can apply to virtually anyone in the popular arts. I suppose there are some specialized acts that fall into no other clear category and for which "entertainer" would be appropriate, but that's not the case with Larry Miller. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Note that In ictu notified the other participants in the previous discussion, but failed to inform me, which is bad form to say the least, per WP:CANVASS. Dohn joe (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought I had. Among so many postings to and fro on your support for the (entertainer) dab it got missed. You have been following all edits so closely, you won't have missed anything. Anyway, regarding WP:AT can you please provide evidence that "entertainer" is how sources refer to the subject of article. As per other Talk:Common (entertainer): WP:AT CRITERIA 2. Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. If WP:AT says "Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English" then WP:CRITERIA requires assessment of WP:RS to find out "what the subject is actually called in English" before it can be "conveyed" in the title. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Larry_Miller_(comedian)&oldid=1209069055"