Jump to content

Talk:Bob Odenkirk/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Trivia

  • He's been on a lot of things for Tom Goes To The Mayor, not just that dime sequence. Change it up.
  • does anyone know what high school he went to? was it nap. north or central?
  • according to some guy on the imbd board discussion on the north or central topic he said that bob went to north 9th thru 11th grade and then he went to central for 12th grade.
  • He trained the late Chris Benoit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.138.19 (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bob's brother Bill Odenkirk

I noticed that Bob Odenkirk's article does not mention his brother Bill Odenkirk, though Bill's article does mention Bob. It is an important detail to capture, as Bill has been a collaborator on dozens of TV episodes, including 17 of the 30 episodes of Mr. Show (per IMDB), which is cited at the top of Bob's article as Bob's best know work.

I am long time user of Wikipedia, but I am not comfortable editing the article myself, as I created an account for the first time just today in order to leave this note (starting small). Thanks for considering my suggestion.

Kirk (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Larry Sanders Show

This article does not mention anything about Odenkirk's work on The Larry Sanders Show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.30.231 (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Tvfunhousepanel.jpg

In the article, this photo appears with a caption stating that Odenkirk is in the photo, but the file description only lists

  • Robert Smigel
  • Doug Dale
  • Dino Stamatopoulos
  • Tommy Blacha

Attys (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced negative insertions will be reverted

The additions to this article accusing Bob Odenkirk of violence lack sufficient reliable sourcing. The sourcing is suspect because they are all offline sources and one of the "offline" sources used (a Rolling Stone article) did not contain any of the material allegedly sourced to it. Ergo, I regard the entire section as suspect and will revert per WP:BLP. Those inserting the material should immediately provide scrupulous and available sourcing for it here and discuss their proposal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

grammar

first paragraph makes no sense, needs revising. i would edit it but every time i've tried before it gets changed back for some reason

Other names

The article's infobox list "Van Hammersly" as an "other name" for Odenkirk. My understanding, however, is that "other name" is only to be used when the person is commonly referred to by that name or is notable for using that name. That what is says in the description for "other name" given in Template:Infobox person#TemplateData. In the Screen Rant interview with Odenkirk that was cited as the source for "Van Hammersly", Odenkirk says " there are certain names that we come up with, silly names we reuse and I've used that name probably four or five times in comedy sketches. And the name is not Vance; it’s Van." This sounds like an inside joke that Odenkirk uses among friends/co-workers: A character name he has used for some of the stuff he has written for various shows and not a name that he is referred to as by reliable sources. So, I have removed the information per WP:ONUS since it's synthesis to uses sources to interpret this name as being something that Odenkirk officially goes by or is commonly referred to as. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Children's names

I removed the names of Odenkirk's children, which someone else has since restored.

Per WP:BLPNAME, "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." Does anyone have a case to make that knowing the names of his children, as opposed to merely that they exist, is relevant to a complete understanding of the subject? His children are not, as far as I can tell, notable people themselves. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the names of his children are particulary necessary per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:BLPNAME, unless it can be established that Odenkirk frequently discusses them and that they are receiving more than passing mention coverage in reliable sources. Knowing his children's names is not going to enhance a reader's understanding of who Odenkirk is to the degree that not including the names would be detrimental to that understanding. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Along those same lines, Louis C.K. jump-started his stand-up career by talking about his daughters. Yet their names are not on his page. If someone wants to find the names, they surely can, but that doesn't mean they need to be here. I don't think it is noteworthy. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The names were removed because the edit summary mentioned privacy concerns. Since they are mentioned in the cited source, directly following the wife's name, it makes perfect sense to mention their names as well. No harm, no foul. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the point of WP:BLPNAME is privacy concerns. It is not limited to cases where the names cannot be found by any other means. Can you cite a reason to include the names that addresses the standards set in WP:BLPNAME? --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The point of a privacy concern is that we don't publicize names that are not publicly available. When there is a footnote that points to a source that the reader is EXPECTED to verify, we don't filter out information that is already there, just like we don't censor profanities. It's not "elsewhere", it's RIGHT THERE. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Just because it is there does not make it noteworthy, especially when balanced against privacy concerns. There is much in sources that isn't included here, for we do filter out information that isn't noteworthy. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What privacy concerns? It's as if this conversation never even existed... EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." How do you think this presumption is overcome here? Just because the names can be found does not mean they should be included here unless they are notable for some reason. You've already been asked, why should they be included? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if the cited source doesn't mention the names and you have to dig in order to find them then it is a privacy concern. The presence of those names in the cited source automatically discredits the "low-profile" presumption. Once again, if those names are literally a click away, in a source that WE provide, citing them is perfectly OK. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
That is nowhere in the policy. The presumption is against inclusion. It does not say, 'unless the information is available elsewhere,' even in a cited source. And you still are not answering why the information should be included here to begin with. Just because it is available does not make it noteworthy. You appear to be arguing with the policy itself, which should be done at the policy page, not here. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
No, EauZen, that's neither the standard nor the practice. If you review the cases at WP:BLPN having to do with names of subjects' children (such as this discussion, you'll see that there is a consensus not to include such names unless there is particular individual notability of the kid involved or some import to the naming in the story. "Low profile" does not mean "invisible". --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Then don't cite privacy concerns because that is NOT the reason the names were removed, it's notability. Duly noted. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 10:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Not Jewish

I have removed the sentence He has stated that his wife and children are Jewish, but he is not. from the "Personal life" section per WP:UNDUE, WP:RSCONTEXT, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Even though the cited source is considered to reliable (See WP:RSN#Bob Odenkirk interview for details), the sentence seems completely out of place without providing additional context. The reason Odenkirk mentioned he's not Jewish in the interview was because he was asked about the character "Saul Goodman" from Breaking Bad. He just seemed to be saying that "Saul Goodman" sounded like a Jewish name to him, so he wasn't initially sure if he was right for the role since he's not Jewish, even though his wife and children are. In my opinion, Odenkirk's response seems to have been made more half-in-jest and incidentally thatthan as a significant statement on his or his family's religious beliefs. Odenkirk's religious beliefs or their significance to him are not mentioned at all anywhere else in the article, and the religious beliefs of his family do not seem really notable enough on their own to warrant such a mention. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC); (Edited by Marchjuly to correct spelling: "that" to "than" - 21:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC))

Very rationally argued. Agree, not so much not RS, as not relevant.Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
"Saul Goodman" is not even the character's name, who is not Jewish. It is an alias. His wife and kids are Jewish, that is why it is pertinent to point out he is not.2001:558:6012:5A:565:ABEA:FCDE:5BBD (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's worth noting that his kids and wife are Jewish. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, that is fine too. But if it is mentioned, it should also be mentioned that he is not. 2001:558:6012:5A:565:ABEA:FCDE:5BBD (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Video games section

Somethings is definitely wrong with Video Games section. What the hell is GTA 11, 12, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:C700:0:803:D1A6:EEF3:A8DC:B08B (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Odenkirk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Odenkirk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Name meaning

His name is Germanic absolutely, it is not Old Norse, i'm sorry. I realize that the citation for this goes to his imdb page where it says that it is Old Norse, but, nevertheless, it is not correct. Óđinskirkju in Old Norse. The spelling of Odenkirk's name probably HAS been changed over the years but it shows no indication it is Old Norse and is probably of German origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.122.85 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Did he actually die?

I saw someone add that he died but from the news reports I've seen, none of them have indicated he died. Is there a way to require people to submit a link as proof before an edit is made that he's deceased? 68.160.189.39 (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This is just trolling people do it all the time. If you see someone's article claim they are dead when they arent, simply revert it back to the last revision and report them for vandalism. FishandChipper (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Odenkirk/Archive_1&oldid=1195846484"