Talk:Lake Bell

Use of WASP

The use of WASP seems a tad informal and mildly derogatory. Another term, perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.6.98 (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

--Those are her words, hence the quotes and the citation to the interview, chill out dude. a "tad" informal and "mildly" derogatory - hahahahahaha

I think his criticism of the term lies in the fact that it's commonly used in a backhanded manner intended to imply "not 'diverse'" and thus "privileged" (notwithstanding the range of socio-economic backgrounds WASP can imply), divorced from "day to day hardships" and thus representing "the source of all modern-day evils'". Oh, sorry- "hahahahahaha".

Height

She says herself on a Conan O'Brien Interview that she is 5'8" tall. I tried to put in the interview exert from YouTube but it got reverted. Can anyone help?? 213.7.227.207 (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

YouTube is not the preferred type of source. If we can find it in a news article, so much the better. --BwB (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

By "not preferred" do you actually mean "not allowed"? Because if its simply an issue of preference that would seem to imply that a YouTube video is in fact acceptable in the absence of any other source. 75.64.216.248 (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Source?

Do editors feel that Celebies.com [1] is a reliable source for material for a BLP? --BweeB (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• No. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead

A reminder that the WP:LEAD is a summary that should only include a representative handful of her significant films, and not be a laundry list of 10 or more. That's a filmography. We also don't use WP:PEACOCK terms like "award-winning": We give specifics, if an award is significant -- a film festival award for a short is not "She won an Academy Award for...." --Tenebrae (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Rather than discuss his fannish edits, as I initiated here, one editor prefers to edit-war rather than discuss. I'd prefer discussion to an RfC about his incredibly POV idea of what's "notable" and treating this article like a fan site. We don't list as many films in the lead for Meryl Streep as he wants to do here!--Tenebrae (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see you had posted on here, apologies. Firstly, yes, I agree, it shouldn't say "award-winning". I didn't mean to add that back in, I just forgot to remove it when I restored the older version. Secondly, yes, I think some of the TV and films you've removed are certainly notable enough to be mentioned in the lead: How to Make It in America, Children's Hospital etc. I thought it was strange that you removed them for being "barely notable" and then added in Pride and Glory. The version I changed to listed 7 of her films, which is hardly "a laundry list of 10 or more" or "a filmography". Also, what does the article on Meryl Streep have to do with this one? That lists 6 films of hers, so this one should keep to the same number? Note that, for example, the article on Scarlett Johansson lists 20 films in her introduction. I hardly think 7 is excessive, "fannish" or "incredibly POV". Finally, the version you are reverting to just doesn't make sense: it includes a date after just one of the TV series: "Miss Match (2003)" and then for nothing else and then it goes on to say "and other series, in has appeared in films including..." which doesn't make any sense at all. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss. The point I was making with Meryl Streep was proportionality: None of Lake's films have the prestige or notability of The Deer Hunter, Kramer vs. Kramer, Sophie's Choice, the miniseries Holocaust for which Streep won an Emmy, etc. It seems undue weight to list Over Her Dead Body, Burning Palms, A Good Old-Fashioned Orgy and other extremely minor films. (And there were eight films, not seven, even aside from the separately mentioned In a World..., and five TV shows.) (If there are 20 in Scarlett Johannson, that is clearly too many, and if you go to that article's talk page you'll find other contentious issues involving fan/tabloidy edits, so one thing at a time; the Johannson article needs work.)

Could we compromise with a representative sample of five movies (plus In a World... separately as now) and two TV shows, and you pick them? My suggestion is that since she had attention-getting roles in No Strings Attached and It's Complicated, both major-studio movies in which she played substantial supporting roles, that those be included. I'd also mention Million Dollar Arm, since she has a co-starring role in that. And a couple more. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, of course none of Lake Bell's projects are as notable as Meryl Streep's, but things like What happens in vegas, How to make it in america and Children's hospital are what she is most notable for. And not to get off-topic but the problem with Meryl Streep's intro, in my opinion, is that it only mentions 2 films that she's made post-1979. What's the opposite of WP:RECENTISM? WP:OLDISM? By contrast, the lead for Scarlett Johansson's article looks pretty good to me.

As for what to include, how about Boston Legal, Surface and How to Make it in America; Over Her Dead Body, What Happens in Vegas, It's Complicated and No Strings Attached? I also think Children's Hospital should be mentioned at the end because it's ongoing, perhaps alongside the upcoming film? Tiller54 (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a fair compromise and accurately reflects the work for which she's best-known. I love it when editors can work things out on their own!

My only suggestion is to include Children's Hospital with the rest of the TV series. I'm not sure how to break it out because it's current without violating WP:DATED. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, that sounds good. I'll do it now. Tiller54 (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Son's name

So, since it's not entirely clear from the article cited: is the son actually NAMED "Ozgood" (ewww) and CALLED "Ozzi", or is he NAMED "Ozzi" in tribute to... whatever/ whoever "Ozgood" is supposed to be? Do any other sources clarify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.123.16 (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)