Talk:Adam Sandler

Mark Twain Prize

Should the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor be mentioned on the main page awards?

Yes I think so, it's a major award HardScience (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2025

"The couple have" should be changed into "The couple has" (change in grammar). FuchsCC (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for catching that. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Needs A summery of Jackie Sandler acting, and SHE needs her own Article.

Jackie_Sandler needs HER own Article! (There was one that was deleted and replaced with a Redirect here:)

Currently: (Redirected from Jackie Sandler) (Redirected from Jackie Sandler)

Jackie_Sandler needs HER own Article. Links to HER in other articles currently Redirect to this Article's section on HIS Personal life: Adam Sandler#Personal life. "Sandler has been married to Jacqueline "Jackie" Sandler (née Titone) since 2003. She converted to Sandler's religion, Judaism"

There it nothing about HER acting.....

Their Daughter's roles are briefly mentioned with links to their OWN Articles. ~2025-33733-79 (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Evil Elmo hatnote

The hatnote that says "For the criminal of the same name, see Evil Elmo." is an unnecessary disambiguation. The criminal in question's legal name may be the same as the article's subject, but if this Adam Sandler is logically the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the other one's WP:COMMONNAME is referred to differently by many reliable sources as not his legal name, the need to disambiguate the two---with the secondary topic's common name not even sharing the primary topic's name to begin with---is just an unnecessary addition. Considering that the reason the criminal's article title was moved from his legal name to the commonly used one of a different name was because it is used in most sources, and this hatnote existing in the first place solely to disambiguate the two before the title was moved (check this page's history), continuing to keep it with no immediately clear reason to distinguish---unless you click on the criminal's page and see his legal name is Adam Sandler---seems redundant. If anything, this causes more confusion for readers if the "same name" in the hatnote is an entirely different one; versus when this hatnote originally existed, the "same name" was actually Adam Sandler and not Evil Elmo, therefore making the hatnote more appropriate and less likely to confuse.

This is like if some random criminal changed their legal name to Jim Carrey which would apparently make Jim Carrey's page (instead of the lesser-known criminal's page) need a hatnote to indicate their unrelation. It lacks common sense. And there's no need to create a disambiguation page either if it's only two topics. If this hatnote is still to be kept, at least clarify that the criminal's "same name" is in fact his legal name, and not his commonly known one which is his article's title (or more logically move it to the criminal's page instead). CdKd25 (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

If some random criminal who was deemed notable enough to have their own article legally changed their name to Jim Carrey, I would say that it would make sense to have a hatnote on Jim Carrey. I cannot understand what your objection to this is. It's just a small note at the top of the article for people who might be looking for a different Adam Sandler. --Onorem (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

'If some random criminal who was deemed notable enough to have their own article legally changed their name to Jim Carrey, I would say that it would make sense to have a hatnote on Jim Carrey. '

Except that would only make as much sense if that person's article title was Jim Carrey (with parentheses to disambiguate) and not a more commonly known nickname, which is the case for this criminal. My "objection" is that this hatnote was originally created solely to differentiate these two people when that use-case you mentioned actually existed. But since the criminal's article title was moved to an entirely different name, it's logically now much harder to confuse the two.

'I cannot understand what your objection to this is. It's just a small note at the top of the article for people who might be looking for a different Adam Sandler.'

When the hatnote says "for the criminal of the same name[...]" and it's just an entirely different one instead of when it used to say [Adam Sandler] before the move, it's now just extra clutter that causes unneeded confusion. If someone were looking for a different Adam Sandler (of which this criminal is the only one I'm aware), they could just type Adam Sandler into the search box and find the criminal in the list. Like stated, it'd be wiser to move the note to the lesser-known criminal's article (even though Adam Sandler actor is already linked there) where a reader would much likelier confuse them with the far-more known individual. Or just clarify in the note that it's his legal name which is the same, not his common one (e.g. For the criminal of the same legal name, see Evil Elmo). CdKd25 (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2026 (UTC)