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 sourcedmust 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 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Sexual misconduct allegations in own section[edit]
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)[reply]
Per WP:CSECTION, "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section", in order to follow a neutral point of view and due weight considerations. As you say, this is a part of C.K.'s career, and that's why it should be within that section. — Bilorv (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely needs its own section. For it to be one sentence in a giant section on his career accomplishments diminishes what he did to these women. 2603:7000:6039:F00C:881B:EFDD:9BC5:46F3 (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting "one sentence" from? It's seven paragraphs under "2017: Sexual misconduct revelations" and a paragraph under "2018–2020: Return to stand-up comedy". — Bilorv (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should "Louis C.K.: Back to the Garden" be listed with the rest of his comedy specials?[edit]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'd include it, though it could do with some secondary sources in the body. (At the minimum: what were its themes? What did critics think?) — Bilorv (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally a special, imo. Surprised not to see it there.--109.110.78.228 (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I'd love to see some examples from other articles about artists known by a similarly artificial name. Thanks! 🙂 Dalgard (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
