Talk:Carol Burnett

Recurring/Recurred

There has been a recent spate of edits/reverts about characterizing Miss Burnett's appearances in a role or roles that wasn't a "one-off", or a special but a character that appeared repeatedly on a TV show. So far as I know this type of acting work is always described as recuring in the trades, I have never seen it described at IMDb or Variety or Billboard or in the LA Times or NY Times as recurred (keeping in mind the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME). Discuss here. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Shearonink: As I pointed out in the edit log, a recurring role is just that in the present tense. But when the show and/or the role have ended, as I explained, it is grammatically incorrect to say that it is recurring, as that suggests it is still recurring, when it isn't. At that point, the role recurred. Also, recurred is grammatically correct, because the "ing" makes the word present participle, while recurred is the correct past participle. Please review these links.

Regarding what you've seen in the trades, it's likely you only saw "recurring," because they were reporting current roles, or current shows. But Variety, Billboard, the LA Times, etc., all regularly use the correct term recurred.

Tons of examples can be found: here (in Variety), and here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here; here (in Billboard), and here, here; here (in the LA Times), here, here, etc; and on IMDB, even though it's often self-submitted or fan submitted, please see: here on IMDB, and here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. So the term is clearly far more widespread than you believed.

Finally, as I pointed out to Leopea, per WP:EW, you also shouldn't have reverted again prior to our discussion. But please self-revert now. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

In terms of describing the work within articles. yes the filming did occur in the past but the usage of recurring is accepted and common-term in terms of actors' resumes. I have never seen an actor's resume that describes repeated appearances as a particular character as "recurred" and to me the following is part of the reason: the work is recorded and can then be accessed in the future. It is not over and done with never to be seen again (keeping in mind syndication & residuals).

Within the examples you cited above, there is also the usage of "recurring" within at least two of those articles - here & here. Also, examples of "recurred" (from the LA Times plus other usage I went through within your list) occur in the articles as "[subject] has recurred as [role]", but the usage for recurring is "[subject] had [or has] a recurring role [as character] on [show]".

If you think that the usage of describing multiple appearances in a role as "recurring" (per the Carol Burnett article) is unacceptable across the board within Wikipedia then perhaps that issue could best be taken up at an RFC on an associated WikiProject - maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre or WP:FILMBIO.

Regarding your final sentence...you are saying that I edit-warred when I reverted the recurred to recurring. I don't think I was edit-warring as my reversion was the first edit I have done on this article in weeks. You asked for discussion on the matter, so per WP:BRD, I reverted the changes to the most-recently stable version. The editorial community can discuss and come to a consensus about what best serves this article. Shearonink (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you provided no response to my explanation - and links - regarding English grammar. Just telling me what "you've seen" is neither evidence, a source nor constructive - especially when you were just given multiple examples of those same sources saying exactly what you claimed to have never seen. Regarding your claims that "recurring" is used in two of my examples - of course it is! For current examples! Both links list shows that are current. One was "Saturday Night Live" - while the other even said "recently had a recurring" role on "Underground." So you're provided no basis for failing to correct this clear error; either grammatically, or in the sources you mentioned. You originally said: "I have never seen it described at IMDb or Variety or Billboard or in the LA Times or NY Times as recurred." Well now you have. I also asked you to self-revert, which you didn't. So I'm restoring my correction. Per English grammar, more than sufficient reliable sources and common sense. If you disagree, you can RfC it. X4n6 (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:AGF is a beautiful thing isn't it?...I wish your tone were a little more collegial, it would make working together with you on this matter so much easier.

As to the "no response" charge. Well, the reason I mentioned all those sources is that is what is accepted as reliable sources for actors' work and I didn't ever remember seeing a list of actors' credits listing multiple appearances as the same character in the past-tense of "recurred". What is at issue here is which usage should be characterized as common-practice and accepted-use in terms of listing actors' credits re: recurring or recurred. We differ about this and I think you are right - an RFC would be useful. I just have to figure out the appropriate venue.

Your content changes of recurring to recurred were reverted by two different editors - keeping in mind WP:BRD & the dispute resolution process the article should probably have been left in its previous state. That's neither here nor there at this point though...you've reverted to your preferred version & we will have to figure out together how to proceed. If I don't get back to this pleasant discussion for the next week or so, it is because I will be where the internet is rather spotty, not because I am not longer interested in this issue. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I might be inclined to take exception to your WP:AGF charge, if it wasn't so transparently meritless and needlessly inflammatory. I provided you with more than sufficient sources to support my position. Your only "source" is just your own memory - which I've already shown is, putting it mildly, not definitive. See WP:OR. Your only remaining argument then, regards "what is accepted as reliable sources for actors' work." Fine. Again, already provided: by the very sources you called reliable. Given all that, I even offered you the chance to voluntarily self-revert. But you failed to do that. Your attempt to rebut (some) of those sources also failed. So what else is there, honestly? AGF is a two-way street. As is BRD. You chose not to act, so I did. So now, this is just a case of you, for whatever reason(s), not grasping the basic principles of grammatical tense. Recurring is present tense. Recurred is past tense. It's that simple. Application is based on context. If you still don't get that, so be it. An RfC will most likely, very easily, clear that up for you. Take your time, think about it, and let me know when you're ready. Cheers! X4n6 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that is incorrect. It is far from being that simple. "Recurred roles" is just plain-old bad grammar. "Recurring roles" is correct. If it helps, take a look at this, this , and this for more detailed explanations. That last one from the Oxford English department is especially helpful, as it talks about exactly what is going on here. The suffix "-ing" is used to change a verb into it's present tense, that is true. But it is also used to change a verb into a participle, which is an adjective, adverb, or gerund. These participles can be added to perfect, past, present, or future tense verbs to form "progressive tenses" (ie: past progressive, present progressive, perfect progressive). They can also be used as gerunds and adjectives, which is the case here. To put it simply, a "gerund" is a verb (participle) that is being used as a noun. Because it's a noun, there is no tense. What it shows is an act. To show that it's an active act, the present tense form of the participle is used. To show a passive act, you would use the past-tense form.

In this particular case, the gerund is used as an adjective to modify a noun. In this case, the present-tense form is used. (ie: Racing car, fighting soldiers, machining tools, trimming shears, etc... These are active acts, or, in other words, they are acts that the noun does. The car was made for racing, the soldiers for fighting. Compare that to a passive act: Raced car, fought soldiers, machined tools. These are acts that were done to the noun. Does that make sense?) I hope all of that helps, but those sources should explain it very well. Zaereth (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Your first comment here, was that I was "incorrect. It is far from being simple?" Let's see. Shearonink disagreed with my sourced edits and goes to Materialscientist's talk page "needing some advice". The admin gave a personal opinion, but essentially begged off more. You commented, giving your "$0.02". You said: "She appeared in recurred roles." "She appeared in recurring roles." The latter sounds correct while any child can see the former is all wrong." One hopes that child would also see that: "Several of her roles recurred." is actually correct. Curiously, if you read the explanation you posted about suffixes, it also made my point that "recurring" is present tense.

Then you posted 3 sources on gerunds: from an ESL teacher in Germany, a student run website at a state university in Minnesota and a book excerpt from another English teacher named George Yule.

Then you said: "On second thought, (against my better judgment) I just left a comment on that talk page. We'll see what happens." Your first comment here, under the edit log note "poor grammer" was: "Recurred roles" is just plain-old bad grammar." After I didn't post for a couple days, you reverted my last edit, once again saying you were fixing "grammer."

But here's why this is simple. We require reliable sources. Not your "$0.02," or what Shearonink "has never seen." Neither of you have provided any reliable source - or any entertainment industry source - disproving the word "recurred" in this context. Or retracting it, once printed. I provided twenty-five industry sources using it. I even chose sources Shearonink accepted as reliable: "I have never seen it described at IMDb or Variety or Billboard or in the LA Times or NY Times as recurr'ed." So I gave 25 examples - from Variety, Billboard, the LA Times and IMDB. The editor tried to contest 2. When that failed, the editor did a little campaigning in anticipation of the RfC which I had recommended if he didn't agree. So here you are. And once again, acting with no industry sources, or RfC. Or even having acknowledged the sources I provided.

Also, JSUK: a gerund is a verb functioning as a noun.[1][2][3]. The word "recurring" in "recurring role" is used as an adjective - technically a "pure adjective" or "adjectival phrase" - but not a noun.[4]. So very simply, like Shearonink, you ignored 25 examples - industry-related, reliable sources - and your view is grammatically incorrect, per the dictionary and language sources. So either you follow WP policies on WP:RS and Verifiability, or you willfully ignore both policies - and any and all sources - whenever. Because you don't agree with them. X4n6 (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I said "against my better judgment" because I really don't have time to argue over something so basic. I responded because I watch MS's talk page and English just happened to be an interest of mine. So let's examine your 25 sources.

Source 1 is a Vanity article. The word "recurred" appears only once. In context it reads, "Dale, who has recurred on the procedural since Season 2..." The word "recurred" here is a participle used as an adverb to describe the verb "has". This turns it into a present-perfect tense.

2.) Vanity, also appears once: "Morales, who starred on Fox’s “The Grinder” and recurred on “Parks and Recreation..." This is simply a past-tense verb.

3.) Vanity (I'm starting to see a pattern here.) Also appears only once in the sentence: "Leigh currently appears in the Showtime revival of “Twin Peaks,” and previously recurred on the hit Showtime series “Weeds.” Once again, this is simply a past-tense verb, which happens to be modified by the adverb "previously".

4.) Let's skip ahead to a different source. LA Times. Also occurs once: "Chernus recurred as the blundering brother Cal Chapman on Netflix’s "Orange Is the New Black"..." In this sentence recurred is also being used simply as a verb.

Do I really have to review all 25 sources? I assume good faith in that you honestly believe what you are saying and simply do not understand the difference. (I would hate to think that someone would purposely try to confuse us all with a huge pile of sources that have absolutely nothing to support their view.) Like I said on MS's talk page, it's idiomatic. Most people don't know why it looks weird, it just does. If you notice on his talk page, when I wrote the sentence "& I thancke yow þat ʒe wolde wochesaffe to guye so hænde a tydyngys. þat xulde verily be grete help, for I sopose þe wrytyng ys non esse to som." I purposely used two gerunds, "tidings" (information) and "writing". What makes these gerunds are not the words themselves, but how they are used in the sentence. ("I thank you that you would work to give such handy information, that should be very great help, for I suppose the writing is not easy to some.") The purpose was to show that this stuff is not something someone just made up, but has been around for a good thousand years. Like the idiom article says, it's futile to try to overthink it. That's just the way we speak. Zaereth (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Well, if you "really don't have time to argue over something so basic" - then you probably shouldn't have. Either then, or now. You certainly haven't been forced, you inserted yourself. So if you'd like to withdraw now, you can just say so. But surely even you know "A Vanity article." is not a serious response. To quote you, "Any child can see" that for what it is. Each Variety article came with a byline by a staff reporter. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with what Variety reports on, but casting announcements are an enormous part of their reporting. And every source from Variety, Billboard and the LA Times was bylined by a staff reporter. That means those articles conformed to each publication's style guide. The LA Times article you mentioned is also wholly consistent with what I've said: "Before he was an inventor, Chernus recurred as the blundering brother Cal Chapman." Exactly. "Cal Chapman" was the role which recurred. Chernus was the actor who recurred in that role. Recurred as in "formerly." As in - in the past - whether in tense or participle. You've never explained how the word "recurring" shows the past? It doesn't. It means the present - as in currently. When that is appropriate - use it. When in the past - use the past. The End. You asked if you needed to go through all 25 sources? If thatt will help you understand something - "so basic" - and maybe how and why you got it wrong for so long, then yes.

Frankly, I took the time to compile 25 sources for 4 reasons: 1) Those were the sources Shearonink mentioned. I agreed. So it's a bit late to complain about them now. 2) They are reliable sources, which is why I agreed. They're also entertainment industry sources, which make them the gold standard of reliable sources here. 3) The sheer volume of examples, saying the same thing, makes them immune to attack. 4) They clearly show this is standard practice - and standard for entertainment industry publications. Also don't forget IMDB. So 25 sources proves: the correct use of "recurred" wasn't an anomaly or an aberration. 25 industry reliable sources are just that - and no amount of equivocating can change it. At this point, honestly, continuing to try - and with no opposing reliable sources - unfortunately, just looks like WP:IDHT. X4n6 (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not a debater, but I will say that I agree with Zaereth and Shearonink. The point is that recurring is an adjective, it refers to the role, a 'recurring role'. So in this case, I will back up the two aforementioned users. If there are more users who will agree with us, then the issue should be resolved this way. Leopea (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

If you agree that recurring is an adjective, then you agree with me. Because Zaereth believes it's a gerund. So if that resolves this issue for you, then so be it. X4n6 (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Filmography/Television credits section

RECURRING:

The consensus is to use recurring.

Cunard (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Miss Burnett's multiple appearances as a particular character in a television show be listed in her credits as "Recurring" or as "Recurred"? (See the "Recurred/Recurring" section above and the article's editing history for past discussions as well as pertinent edit summaries.) Shearonink (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Recurring. The discussion above about tenses isn't particularly relevant because this is not a verb. It is an adjective, taken from the common industry phrases "recurring role" and "recurring character" (often contrasted with "regular" or "guest"). --RL0919 (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Recurring. As per the reasoning above. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Recurring as in "She had a recurring role in the series." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Recurring. As per the reasoning above. Leopea (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Recurring: This is an industry term and not a grammar issue. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Recurred + Comment: @RL0919:, @Jack Sebastian:, @AngusWOOF:, @Nihlus Kryik:, @Shearonink:, @Leopea: I have intentionally taken a break from this discussion, because I grew weary of the false equivalence that had overtaken it. The very notion that one had to chose between "recurring" or "recurred" - as if one term was correct and the other was wrong is nonsense. Even more nonsensical is the notion that one is "an industry term," while the other isn't. The fact is, both are correct and both are industry standard, depending on tense and context.

Example: "Carol Burnett had several recurring roles on Show X. Her roles recurred from 1975 to 1980." Can someone kindly explain to me what's "wrong", or not "industry standard" there? Next, kindly review the word's context in the article. It's seen in the "Notes" section, following "Role." So the word actually references the role - not Burnett - as the RfC states. The role is not currently recurring. It recurred. Also, for those who voted, understandably, without reviewing the voluminous notes above, it would be easy to miss the 25 industry sources that included Variety, Billboard, the Los Angeles Times and IMDB; all acknowledged sources by the same person who began this RfC. So if it reaches consensus that one term is accepted here, while another is not - regardless of context or tense - then it will have done so, not only in defiance, not only of several, sourced entertainment industry publications, but also of WP's own policy on reliable sources. Not to mention elementary school English. I just can't remember the last time so many sources on one side seemed to fail to none on the other side. X4n6 (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Your remarks show you miss the point entirely. The word that needs to go into the box is the word that answers the question "What kind of role/character was it?" It was a recurring role/character, not a recurred role. Data backs this up as well. Recurred is for your doctor to say, not for describing a character. Also, please stop edit warring with others; the WP:STATUSQUO should be maintained while this RfC is open. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

First, the edit was up prior to the RfC, so, per WP:STATUSQUO, you should not have removed it. Second, you are equally incorrect on the substance. Is the role currently ongoing? No, then how is it recurring? Moreover, how does the reader know the roles are not current without a past tense? X4n6 (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It was a recurring role. Recurring does not imply current or active. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You understand that is your opinion, correct? That's not what the grammar - or the sources - say. Have you reviewed either? X4n6 (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and your belief is incorrect, as evidenced by the data I showed and the other comments on this page. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on the comments so far, it appears to be the opinion of most of those expressing an opinion. --RL0919 (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Recurring. I am enormously surprised that this is even a question. This is simple English comprehension and standard usage. Softlavender (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You can disagree. But did you review any of the links? If it's so simple and standard, perhaps you can discuss why four industry publications agree - even though you and other users may not? I'm just not sure why folks are ignoring these sources, and contradicting what they show to be "standard" - so they can supplant them with their own opinions. When did we just start ignoring sources like this? X4n6 (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

X4n6, I have been a professional editor since 1985, and I have a degree in English from a Top 5 American university. You are mistaken about this. "Recurring" does not mean "ongoing" or "current". It means "occurring several/many times". This is standard English usage and has been since the invention of broadcast media. This RfC is a SNOW. Please drop the stick and stop wasting everyone's time before you get reported to a noticeboard and sanctioned. Softlavender (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, please don't try to impress with your CV, or try to intimidate me. Both will fail. I've taught at 2 Ivy League universities. Fact is, I've also been a professional journalist - in this industry - and have actually worked in this industry in more capacities and for more years than I care to disclose. So please don't tell me what you think is industry standard. That's why I provided industry reliable sources - which you still have yet to address. Instead of trying to threaten me - which really is a waste of time - and a vio, which you know could get you reported, why not just address the sources provided? There were 25 of them, with not a word from you. Seriously, you're better than this. How about, per policy, you just focus your comments on them, not me. X4n6 (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, re: your SNOW comment, Soft - apparently you mistakenly thought I started this RfC? Check again. Then apologize? X4n6 (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Here are hundreds of thousands of sources [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. I am not going to reply to you further, and I suggest that everyone else refrain from replying to you as well. Softlavender (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I was perfectly prepared to rebut your hyperbole. But since you can't be bothered any further, I won't bother either. By the way, even more hyperbolic was your claim that Duke is a "Top 5 American university." Not hardly. By any metric. X4n6 (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Same principle applies to starring and starred: "She starred in The Carol Burnett Show." and "She had a starring role in The Carol Burnett Show." "She portrayed Verla Grubbs who recurred in several All My Children episodes." "She had a recurring role as Verla Grubbs in several All My Children episodes." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct! That's all I'm suggesting here. X4n6 (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's wikidiff [10] recurring as adjective, recurred as verb AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. Per your source: "As an adjective recurring is happening or occurring frequently, with repetition." Right? X4n6 (talk) 08:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

We're talking about use in table cells where only the one word appears, which means any analysis of grammar is based on the implication that the word is an ellipsis of a longer phrase or sentence. Do you have a reason to think the implied statement is "She is recurring/recurred in this show", rather than "She has/had a recurring role in this show"? --RL0919 (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The ellipsis analysis makes sense to me RL0919. I would think the word used would be recurring as in "recurring [character]" referring to the multiple occurrences within the timeline of the tv series. The work happened on a particular day or days and was filmed but the character and the work doesn't somehow disappear once the actual filming/the actual acting has occurred. Shearonink (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I stand by original statement. A verb makes a poor category heading, so naturally it reads as either a noun or an adjective. (Usually a noun, but in this case, the word pair is so prevalent within this field that the adjective can be used and the noun inferred.) Since the adjective describes what the noun does (the role/character/etc recurs, thus, it's a recurring role) it's an "active description" so the "-ing" suffix would be the appropriate one. Because you cannot recur a role, I can't use a passive example for that word, so I have to pick another word such as, say ... "finished product". This is a product that has had a smoothly sanded surface or coat of paint applied to it.

A search of google for the terms "recurred role" turns up exactly seven results, all of which are likely typos or misspellings. However, a search for "recurring role" turns up over 400,000 hits. It can be found in everything from articles from People magazine to Reuters (publisher of the famous and world renowned Reuters Manual of Style). All in all, however, I'm not going to invest a lot of time worrying about this, because I have more important things to do. I figure that eventually people will come along, one by one, and say, "Hey, that looks odd" and fix it themselves.

I see this a lot on articles like alloy steel or alloy wheel. Technically, plain carbon-steel and wheels made from it are alloys. so people logically try to include them in those articles. But those terms have very specific meanings that stem from a time when steel and alloys were less understood, and we have to use the terms as everyone else does. No encyclopedia or dictionary has ever been able to shape, control, or preserve the language. (If they did, we'd still be speaking Old Englisdh today.) Anyone who tries is in for a Sisyphean task.Zaereth (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It is remarkable watching someone attempt a disquisition on the parts of speech, when they make so many glaringly obvious grammatical errors in the process. For example, you would be unable to show where I ever once used the phrase "recurred role." Nor is it found in any of the entertainment industry sources I provided - per you. So it's pretty disingenuous to make a show of Googling it. Why you would do that makes sense only to you. But even it returned 244 hits, not the 7 you claimed. While Googling "recurred" returns nearly 4 million hits, including several dictionary definitions. So this attempt to delegitimize the word is pointless. This is just a case where the majority holds a view that, while grammatically incorrect, is common - and entrenched. But "recurred," however unpopular here, is correct when used properly. Just as "irregardless," "conversate," "announciate," "expresso," "misunderestimate" and "nucular" are incorrect in any circumstance - yet remain popular. Because here, as in the real world, language competence is obviously not a prereq. X4n6 (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Recurring - Summoned by bot. This is the standard across the board. Meatsgains (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recording Career?

Perhaps I overlooked it, but I didn't see any mention of Burnett's recording career in the article. I'm not an expert on Burnett, but I know she recorded 4-5 albums of show tunes for major American recording labels, and participated in some cast recordings. Seems like an important aspect of her work in the 1960s. 157.131.199.252 (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2019‎

Fee free to be bold and add that content. Ckruschke (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke

Carol Burnett on "What's My Line?"

I was unable to find mention of Carol Burnett being on the game show, "What's My Line?," as the Mystery Guest, and this is usually done with other Comedians. Carol Burnett, was on "What's My Line?" at least four different dates as the Mystery Guest, 5/7/1961, 12/17/1961, 2/16/1964, and 3/20/1966. One can find these on YouTube, and they were very well done, as was Lucille Ball's appearances on the show.Easeltine (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi - feel free to be bold and add that content. Ckruschke (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Help please - citation

I thought everything would work out but apparently I only got 50% there. Under the litigation portion from the menu there was a citation needed template. I cited the entry directly from the court document dismissing the second suit from the website containing the entire ruling. As much as I have tried to learn how to handle the template on my own, I find it awkward and cumbersome. The reference appears to be appropriately added but it didn't remove the citation needed tag. When I attempted to add the needciteremove tag it put me into a loop of redirects that I can't follow. This is the type of thing that caused me to stop editing some 15 years ago. This should be a simple task, but I am forced to come to the talk page to beg for help. My best guess is that there is a project page created by the citeneeded template. The redirect is lacking information that could easily be included. So any help would be appreciated. --SlimJim^Talk

SlimJim, in wikitext, you just highlight and delete the maintenance tag. (If you use Visual Editor, I don't know how it's done.) I've removed it. Schazjmd (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@were at an event in NYC in the late wighties and wrote a letter to my friend Debbie Maier after. You and Lucy were siting together and she came by to say hi and you invited her to join you briefly. That we as an amazing story and she cherish the moment. I watch your b-day show! 2603:7080:7000:15AD:C4F1:22AA:7CCF:A2D1 (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Drummer.?

Symphony orchestras have percussionists, not ‘drummers’. 2001:8003:3020:1C00:90F2:2E74:1FB6:8374 (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

"Groundbreaking" as not impartial

@FlightTime Hello, I don't think "groundbreaking" is impartial or neutral language. I am not discrediting her as an "OG of female comedy", it's about the fact that "groundbreaking" sounds more like something I'd see in ad. Like it has the same energy has "took the world by storm". Also, what 'ground' did it 'break'? Is it being a milestone by being one of the first women to host a comedy-variety show? Or was it something specific about the show itself? I get that the first paragraph on an article doesn't tend to get into all the specifics immediately but the phrasing as is just is not clear and "groundbreaking" just really doesn't fit the tone of a wikipedia article. UlyssesYYZ (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@UlyssesYYZ: First of all, thanx for opening a discussion. I see your point, do you have any objections to waiting and see if other page watchers have any input? If not, I have no problem with you reverting my edit (maybe reference this thread in your edit summary). The discussion will still be here. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 14:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to that, no. UlyssesYYZ (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Corrections and updates

Hello-I work with Carol Burnett directly and we would encourage you to consider the following changes. Also, I can provide a photo from her latest Emmy win that is a personal photo that we own the copyright to that is not an AP photo if there is a way to submit a new image for your consideration.

Thank you,

Angie

Acting credits and accolades:

Additional guest stars for the 90th special included Kristen Wiig, Laura Dern and Allison Janney if you wanted to add those names. Carol Burnett: 90 Years of Laughter + Love

Also, there is a lot of new press that will be coming out regarding Palm Royale so we wanted to make sure it was mentioned in her wiki page. . Feel free to use any link related to Palm Royale. Carol is officially a guest star throughout the entire series of Season One. Burnett plays ‘Norma,’ the grande dame of Palm Beach high society, a keeper of secrets with more than a few of her own. The premiere is on Apple TV+ on March 20, 2024. https://tv.apple.com/us/show/palm-royale/umc.cmc.6vwg3ce7ovsexa3a6r7f6qk49

Marriages and Family:

Please change her husband's job listing because magazine articles are using Wiki to describe his career and he is no longer the principal drummer at the Hollywood Bowl. He works freelance now but because magazine interviews with Carol look to Wiki, his job is being incorrectly listed in magazine articles right now. He would like it to read:

On November 24, 2001, Burnett married Brian Miller. Miller is the principal drummer for the Hollywood Bowl Orchestra and is 23 years her junior  Miller is a freelance drummer in Los Angeles, musician contractor and orchestra personnel manager, as well as an Emmy^® winning television producer.https://www.emmys.com/bios/brian-miller-1 {the proof for his Emmy award is the link attached}

Health issues

Is there any other title you can make this section than health issues? The paragraph just discusses the story about her getting a new chin. It's not a health issue. We would greatly like this section renamed or moving this story to any other section so we don't have a health issues section. Carol does not have any health issues and she is healthy and active but because of her age and being a living figure, we would appreciate not having this section or having this section renamed, since it's not discussing an actual health issue. It's misleading.

The paragraph below that discusses her scholarships that she still gives, which should be moved to a different section because it has nothing to do with this section and could be easily moved to early life and education or anywhere else where it's appropriate.

Many thanks!

Angie

Angie at Mabel Cat (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey, FYI I’ve seen and removed the adminhelp template, as admins by nature do not become “involved” in subjective content issues. We cannot help you in our capacity as administrators, but you have already done the right thing by posting to the talk page. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: Angie at Mabel Cat, if you would like to donate an image for use, please follow the instructions here.
Regarding guest stars, I think the current people mentioned is sufficient. For the Palm Royale part, please specify exactly what changes you would like to be made, in a "Change X to Y format".
Regarding Miller, do you have a source to support him being a freelance drummer, musician contractor, and orchestra manager?
I've removed the paragraph regarding her chin, as requested. Please ping me if you have any questions. Thanks. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

ARamdonName123, I will submit an image for consideration. For Palm Royale, we will leave it to Wikipedia. Now that the show has officially launched, Wikipedia will be adding additional information from the show as needed. Initially, we just wanted it mentioned.

Regarding Brian Miller (Carol Burnett's husband), the source is Brian Miller. He is now a freelance drummer and no longer the principal drummer for the Hollywood Bowl Orchestra. There is no official notice published of this change. I don't know how wiki makes this correction because it's incorrect to list him now as the principal drummer and he is now strictly feelance. According to Brian Miller, the correct way to describe his employment now is: "Miller, is a freelance drummer in Los Angeles, musician contractor and orchestra personnel manager, as well as an Emmy^® winning television producer." (The Emmy win is from the 90th Carol Burnett special and can be easily sourced from the Emmys where he is listed as an Executive Producer and that the show won the Emmy.)

Can the headline "Health Issues" be changed to "Scholarships" or any other appropriate title. There are no health issues now mentioned.

Thank you for your help. We have never worked with Wiki before and I completely respect the difficulty in making corrections to keep the integrity of a site we all use.

Many thanks,

Angie Angie at Mabel Cat (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

For now, I tweaked Miller's entry to simply describe him as a drummer (which the cited source supports). Schazjmd (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)