This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
As a fan of Louis CK and as someone who is largely okay with him returning to comedy, it's still a little strange for me that his sexual misconduct allegations are described - allbeit in full - in a subsection paragraph of his career.
They are a prominent part of his life and career and should be in their own top level section after both his career and personal life. It doesn't do their significance justice otherwise. 79.66.8.116 ( talk) 10:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
THE INTRODUCTION TO THIS 'article' is waaaaaaay too long. Unnecessary, and boring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.123.126.45 ( talk) 08:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
It was a ticketed livestream event with a 10 day streaming window. Does that make it too disctinct for inclusion? CanningIO ( talk) 21:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I understand and support the reasoning behind using the last name of someone as the short form of their name, at least in their basic article. In fact, I think this method can have a number of benefits, besides expediating the reading of the article, such as facilitating a neutral and yet respectful distance in the phrasing of the article's content.
However, in the case of Louis C.K., using the letters 'C.K.' as the short form—as it is done all through this article—seems weird and artificial to me, for the simple reason that this isn't his last name.
Basically, it doesn't make sense to me that I'm reading the letters "C.K." again and again while having already been told from the article's first paragraph that his actual last name is Székely and knowing that the two letters are simply a kind of sign-off he uses to not confuse people about the spelling of his actual last name.
I propose that the short form "C.K." is changed to *either* "Székely" or "Louis C.K." throughout the article.
I find both options perfectly acceptable in the context of this article—although I think it might read slightly more effortlessly if his artistic tag, "Louis C.K.", is simply spelled out in each case.
Thoughts and/or opinions?
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
As a fan of Louis CK and as someone who is largely okay with him returning to comedy, it's still a little strange for me that his sexual misconduct allegations are described - allbeit in full - in a subsection paragraph of his career.
They are a prominent part of his life and career and should be in their own top level section after both his career and personal life. It doesn't do their significance justice otherwise. 79.66.8.116 ( talk) 10:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
THE INTRODUCTION TO THIS 'article' is waaaaaaay too long. Unnecessary, and boring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.123.126.45 ( talk) 08:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
It was a ticketed livestream event with a 10 day streaming window. Does that make it too disctinct for inclusion? CanningIO ( talk) 21:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I understand and support the reasoning behind using the last name of someone as the short form of their name, at least in their basic article. In fact, I think this method can have a number of benefits, besides expediating the reading of the article, such as facilitating a neutral and yet respectful distance in the phrasing of the article's content.
However, in the case of Louis C.K., using the letters 'C.K.' as the short form—as it is done all through this article—seems weird and artificial to me, for the simple reason that this isn't his last name.
Basically, it doesn't make sense to me that I'm reading the letters "C.K." again and again while having already been told from the article's first paragraph that his actual last name is Székely and knowing that the two letters are simply a kind of sign-off he uses to not confuse people about the spelling of his actual last name.
I propose that the short form "C.K." is changed to *either* "Székely" or "Louis C.K." throughout the article.
I find both options perfectly acceptable in the context of this article—although I think it might read slightly more effortlessly if his artistic tag, "Louis C.K.", is simply spelled out in each case.
Thoughts and/or opinions?