Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
*'''Support''' per nom and ]. ] 03:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom and ]. ] 03:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' not because of nonsense references to WP:CONCISE etc. which seem to forget that titles are meant to be descriptive but because she has been in other B movies such as ] in which Savannah starred. ]] 08:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' not because of nonsense references to WP:CONCISE etc. which seem to forget that titles are meant to be descriptive but because she has been in other B movies such as ] in which Savannah starred. ]] 08:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
:::The reading of ] in the nomination, and other pornstar biography RMs current is novel. Note that for example ] redirects to ] and so on. ] refers to the title not the dab, and we do not clip (dabs) simply to make them short when that is the category. ] (]) 18:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Revision as of 18:59, 24 March 2015
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Savannah (actress) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography
The reverter gave this rationale: "No tangible improvement, please discuss on Talk if any edits are significant". Obviously, s/he didn't recognize the need for improvements I'd made to the grammar/mechanics/references/readability. Moreover, not sure why that person feels so proprietary about the page. I can see reverting changes that detract from an article or that add unreferenced information. But in this case, the person misused the power of reversion. - Froid (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
For the most part you edits were inconsequential and not any significant improvement. You made minor grammar changes (calling them "Major copy edits" in the edit summary, an abuse in and of itself) and added no content. You also messed up some coding in one of the sections that I just fixed along with several references. Thank you for your interest in the subject and the article, but your changes are so minor, I'm not going to bother to revert them. Regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your averagebanjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
One, your nasty tone reflects the very reason why Misplaced Pages's editorial culture is criticized. I suggest trying on a more civil, professional one. Secondly, I can't believe you're happy to live with grammatical errors (as your post indicates you are). Thirdly, I've set up my account so I'm alerted if I break any formatting so I can fix it. Fourthly, you don't own the article -- no one does: not its originator, and not any of the editors. Accordingly, you might want to reevaluate your proprietary stance toward the article. Froid (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Since this communication is written, the only "nastiness" involved is what you have created in your mind. So I suggest that you take your own advice. I invite you to fix actual grammatical errors where ever you find them, but also ask that you to remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a tabloid. By the way, I am a member of the Pornography Project. If you are interested in articles like this, you are welcome to join the project and be part of a group effort. --Scalhotrod - Just your averagebanjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Support - I don't see the point in being overly specific. There are no other actresses known simply as "Savannah". Dismas|14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose for now without further input. I thought there was a consensus or guideline at one time that called for using "(pornographic actress)" instead of "(actress)" in cases such as this (but I can't find it). I have posted a notice at WT:PORNO to get more input. — AjaxSmack15:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
No "tag team" involved (not entirely sure what that's supposed to imply). I check WP:RM every week and comment on those that I choose to comment on. These two articles are listed one above the other, both are on similar subjects and I oppose the proposed move for the same reasons. I suspect other editors do the same thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Support per WP:PRECISE. There is absolutely no reason to include "pornographic" in the disambiguator, and none of the oppose !votes here have given any reason that I can see. Furthermore, to insist on using the adjective when it is not necessary is POV, as it carries with it the implication that she is not a legitimate actress. That is not our call to make. — Amakuru (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per lead of article "was an American pornographic film actress." Why make the title more ambiguous or is the lead wrong? --Richhoncho (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment only. I note that some are supporting on the grounds that "pornographic actress" may be POV and/or derogatory. In which case the category needs to be renamed too, merged in to Category:Actresses, perhaps? Cheers, --Richhoncho (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not mixing apples and oranges, but trying square the circle. The article says she is a pornographic actress, she is categorized as such, yet you say the title might be "POV and probably derogatory" if it said "pornographic actress." If you right are then WP has a major problem, especially in respect of living pornographic actresses. Just saying. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I am neither wikilawyering, nor ignoring your response, save that your response did not respond to mine, but wandered off in a different direction. My comment was in respect of the use of the word "pornographic." I really don't think the issue of "POV and probably derogatory" is applicable when you call them, for instance, "Silent film actor" as opposed to "Film Actor" or "20th-century actresses" etc etc. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
To clarify: I don't see the point in asking an additional, specific disambiguation for pornographic actors, and at the same time not requesting the same with "Silent film actors", "Western genre film actors" and similar. They are all sub-categorizations of the main category "actors", but apparently all the latter could be disambiguate by a simple "(actor/actress)", while pornographic actors should be marked by a scarlet letter in the title, even when there are no other actors who would require such a specification... that's what sounds derogatory and POV for me, not per se, but because of the "double standard" we should apply, one only for pornographic actors, one another for all the other actors. Cavarrone16:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Probably, given the subject matter, we are a pair of t*ts who have managed to fall out, so to speak. Calling a pornographic actress a pornographic actress cannot be POV or derogatory because it is true... But I am happy to accept Cavarrone's final explanation as to what he meant to say. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Support not because of nonsense references to WP:CONCISE etc. which seem to forget that titles are meant to be descriptive but because she has been in other B movies such as The Invisible Maniac in which Savannah starred. GregKaye08:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
