Talk:David Lee (screenwriter)

Requested move

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 not moved. As noted, the purpose of a parenthetical disambiguator is not to provide a canonical description of all of a topic's recognizable features or sources of notability, but to distinguish the topic from others by confusingly similar titles, so that a person searching for the topic will reach it without too much trouble, and keeping in mind that we prefer concise titles. It is possible to imagine a situation where it would significantly help readers searching for topic to provide two disambiguators – say where a person is known in two very disparate fields and it is thought that we would have two distinct classes of searchers who are not likely to know of the other field the topic is known for – but there is no specter of that here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

---

David Lee (screenwriter) → David Lee (producer and writer) – He has been producer, director, and writer for years. Looking at credentials, he is mostly producer of many episodes of Cheers, Frasier, Wings, and The Jeffersons. He wrote 28 episodes of Jeffersons, 10 of Cheers, three of Wings and one of Frasier. Directed 41 of Frasier and less than five of other shows. If David Lee (director, producer, and writer) looks too long, and the proposed title is not good for you, what about David Lee (producer) or David Lee (writer)? To be honest, I prefer "(producer and writer)" or "(writer and producer)" as adequate, but it's your choice. George Ho (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I thought we had a note somewhere about avoiding "and" dabs? Category:American screenwriters is good enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Here are pages: intitle:producer writer, intitle:director writer, and intitle:director producer. WP:AND doesn't forbid such use, and neither does WP:DAB nor WP:NATURAL. George Ho (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I think that's a praxis interpretation of wp:natural method 2, that parenthetical disambiguators should be as short as possible, ideally one word only; only. So, preferably we should decide if he is primarily a writer, a screenwriter or a producer. I believe wikiproject:film has some sort of standards/guidelines for this kind of situation? ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Guidelines about films won't do, but WP:NCPDAB would apply. I can't see any rule prohibiting "writer and producer". By the way, the subject works for television mainly. George Ho (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Wp:criteria #4 "conciseness" means that we should prefer title (X) over title (Y & Z). ^walk victor falk ^talk 09:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The policy doesn't say that "conciseness" implies preferring "title (X)" over "title (X&Y)". You misinterpreted what WP:CRITERIA says. George Ho (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• What is your interpretation of conciseness? ^walk victor falk ^talk 09:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Short as possible without going too short and unrecognizable. Strangely, it is a vague criterion for this case. There is also WP:precision. --George Ho (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. No, we don't usually use two disambiguators. Those few that survive should be changed immediately. One is fine. It tells us who he is. Its only purpose is to distinguish him from other people called David Lee. It does that perfectly well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Should you call him "screenwriter" or "producer" then? George Ho (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Since it doesn't really matter, we should leave the title as it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

Relationship info contested

• 72.132.235.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 72.132.236.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The person using the above IPs has challenged the information about the subject's relationship with someone. The sources verify the relationship, yet the person assumes that the pair split up. However, I could not find sources verifying the breakup. Response? --George Ho (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)