Talk:Phil Lord and Christopher Miller

Split?

Why do these two people have one Wiki page? Are they not prominent enough to merit their own page. I daresay they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.156.58 (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I thought! Matthew11111 (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've ever seen a page on two people like this -- I think it should be split byo (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe a major debate is in order in regards to this article. It is highly questionable why this article was designed to cover both of these people together, rather than doing each separately, as there is no real reason for doing this. The only time, as I can make out, that an article would cover two people together, is if they worked professionally together as an entertainment/comedy/magic act, an example of this being Laurel and Hardy; even in such an article, both performers have themselves got a separate article covering their personal life, education, and so forth.

I believe we must debate this article's future, posthaste, and decide on the course of action here. In addition, I recommend that any wikipedian who can, check to see if this article conforms to Wikipedia's policies. If it doesn't, then this page will need to be redone to conform to those it breaches, even if it means separating the two people into their own article.GUtt01 (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Until there is much more material on them separately, there is no reason for a split. Right now only one small part of Early life would be different. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Gothicfilm: While it is true that it appears there is not much information available for a split, that should not be the reason for why this article must remain the way that it is. If anything, the article should focus on there professional life, and remove all biographical information for the time being. GUtt01 (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I think this article should definitely be split and that each person should have their own article, assuming notability is met on either person of course. I've never seen an article about two different BLPs in the same one before... this is very unusual. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I just split the articles. The title of this one needs to be changed to Chris Miller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montrealguy123 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I have undone the split, because the majority of this article was copy-and-pasted to the new title. Whichever page will get the lion's share of the text should keep the article history; the other one should be split off. —C.Fred (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Worse, the two articles would have 90% of their text in common. A split like that seems like a bad idea. —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Phil Lord birth date ?

It's April 21, 1977 on wikipedia, and July 12, 1975 on internet movie database ? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0520488/ --Vincent Simar (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The pilot to Clone High may have been totally ignored by fox, but didn't MTV produce and air almost an entire season of the show?

popular culture section?

should someone add a popular culture section because they were referenced in Annie... Visokor (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Concerns with Article

I have to state that I am concerned over this article, for at least two reasons:

1. This article appears to have been designed to cover two people together, rather than focusing on each separately, which seems to be quite contradictory when one looks at articles concerning various people. Such articles focus on a single person, and if they worked with a partner, a second article is written mainly to discuss the work they did together, not detail their personal lives. An example of this is Laurel and Hardy - as the pair were a comedy duo, the article mainly discusses their work in entertainment and the popularity they had; any personal information on the performers in the duo is maintained on separate articles for each of them.
2. The amount of information present, and how it has been set out as such, raises some questions. Such factors include:

• Information on early life is not enough, and seems to be... rather mixed up, likely due to the article focused on being aimed at covering both Miller and Lord, rather than doing them separately (as stated above)
• If this article is meant to be set out as a biography, I got to question if it conforms to policies Wikipedia has on biographies of living people.
• Some of the wording used in various parts seems problematic in how it is laid out. "Also, they will produce...", from the "Career" section, is one example, because after this line, it goes on to mention about what they did in January 2017.
• One would expect some elements in the "Career" section to be re-made as sub-sections (i.e. Early work in directing, writing and producing productions, First Big Break, and so forth)

In short, I really think this article needs URGENT attention, ASAP. An assessment needs to be made by Wikipedians, including the site's admins, and some of the more experienced editors, to proof-read and check everything in this article. It is the honest opinion of this Wikipedian, that this page appears to be somewhat a mess and should be redone. Bear in mind, this is my personal opinion, and that others may freely discuss below what they think in regards to my views on this article. GUtt01 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I fully concur. This article is a dysfunctional train wreck. The article should be limited to Lord and Miller's professional partnership and then personal details should be broken into separate articles. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar: Do you know if Wikipedia has a Template for articles that are in serious need of being redone/extensive work, and such like? GUtt01 (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a precedent for handling this sort of thing? A split would probably create significant overlapping content, but maybe that's ok. --Fru1tbat (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

What did I tell you? The article should not be limited to Lord and Miller's professional partnership and then personal details should not be broken into separate articles! The article with a plainlist format is a dysfunctional train wreck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.39.132 (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Why not be WP:BOLD and do the split right away? I don't think there's anything controversial about this. Both are notable directors and producers and can (and should) have their own independent article. Laurent (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

One person one article. It would be great if someone was willing to split this into at least two articles for each individual, and possibly a third article for their collaboration, even if that does means some redundancy. -- 109.79.73.171 (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Lord Miller Productions

The two guys have created an official production company named after them, and several works have been created under the name. Wouldn't it be convenient to make a page for it and put the works in here made by them in said page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junebug2500 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Phil Lord and Christopher Miller → Phil Lord and Chris Miller – Most reliable sources call him "Chris Miller". A simple Google search reveals as much. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:E4D4:74D8:DF99:D133 (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. A quick sample of his works shows me he's almost always credited as Christopher. And that's what he calls himself on Twitter. So I think that's enough evidence to say he probably prefers it over Chris. (Also, the Chris/Christopher split in RS appears fairly even from my end?) Nohomersryan (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • If you click on that link, you'll see many more results for "Chris Miller". We're looking for the WP:COMMONNAME, not his official name. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:D1EB:E4C1:C6EC:7DCE (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
    • And I do not agree there is a "single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used". There are currently pages and pages of results for "Christopher Miller" referring to the director, and, as I mentioned earlier, he is always credited as "Christopher Miller" without fail. Because of this I defer to MOS:IDENTITY, "If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses." Nohomersryan (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
      • He is not credited as "Christopher Miller" "without fail." He is sometimes credited as "Chris Miller", and as the link above shows, there are many more reliable sources using "Chris Miller" than "Christopher Miller". 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:D1EB:E4C1:C6EC:7DCE (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - blanket oppose based on nom's justification by a "simple Google search". Lazy, open to interpretation, and potentially biased - Wikipedia:Search engine test#Biases to be aware of. -- Netoholic @ 21:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Lazy? Yes (and equally lazy by you). The rest? No. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:2555:265A:9DA3:C81 (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• Create a redirect. Sure, reliable sources have referred to him as Chris, but many have also referred to him as Christopher. I suggest a redirect. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Nevermind oppose. I didn't realize the redirect already existed. OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, some sources call him Chris, but not enough to overwhelm the Christopher that he prefers to use. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2020 (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.

Collaborators

I suggest deleting the "Recurring collaborators" table entirely. You could maybe trim it back and remove some of the less frequent collaborators but I think it would be better if they table was removed entirely. Quantity is not quality, and this table is not clear enough that readers can tell the difference between an actor that has many minor appearances versus an actor that has a few but significant leading roles in their films.

The table is the kind of thing Wikipedia used to do but it isn't a good idea, and exactly the kind of thing that better quality articles replace with a concise bit of prose. This would all be much better if it was written as prose and if it was based on reliable sources not original research disguised as a table. If Lord-Miller frequently cast the same actor in more than just minor roles and it is significant enough to represent a pattern then by now there should be reliable sources that mention it.

For now I have tagged it with {{Table section needs prose}} but ultimately the whole "Recurring collaborators" table should be deleted entirely. -- 109.79.165.40 (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Actor	#
Will Forte	9
Michael Cera	2
Bill Hader	3
Anna Faris	3
Jake Johnson	3
Jonah Hill	4
Nick Offerman	4
Channing Tatum	6
Jason Sudeikis	2
Kristen Schaal	2
Johnny Pemberton	3
Will Arnett	3
Jorma Taccone	4
Rob Riggle	3
Abbi Jacobson	2
Maya Rudolph	2
Jason Mantzoukas	2
Olivia Munn	2
Andy Samberg	4
Neil Flynn	2

I've reformatted the table to show the same information in a more compact way and make the problem clearer. There are a whole lot of people listed on the table that have only been in a Lord Miller film 2 or 3 times. Will Forte leads the pack with 9 appearances, followed by Channing Tatum with 6. We still have no sources to suggest that any of this is noteworthy, so it is either a simple calulation or original research depending on how you look at it.

The table does not list The Last Man on Earth (1 more for Will Forte, subtotal 10) or Brooklyn Nine-Nine (1 more for Samberg, subtotal 5), which brings us back to the major problem with this sort of table, it only lists an appearance, it says nothing about if it is lead role or a bit part. Collaborating with an actor across many episodes of a TV series might be significant.

The whole table needs to go. If this had been a prose section without any sources I expect it would have been deleted long before now. It remains to be seen if there is anything that can be salvaged, but it would need reliable sources. -- 109.79.65.219 (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the whole table.[1] If anyone has sources to support the idea that anything in the table was actually notable (perhaps the frequent collaboration with Forte, perhaps not) they can always write a sentence or two about it instead. -- 109.78.209.81 (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

More importantly what does this table actually say about Phil Lord or Christopher Miller? It might be worth mentioning in Will Forte's article that he works frequently with Lord and Miller and still not necessarily be worth mentioning here in this article. -- 109.78.199.36 (talk) 09:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's First Producer and Screenwriter 1998

Originally John Hughes 148.252.129.141 (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)