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 Wikipedia'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 articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. 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 articles
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)reply
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)reply
One, your nasty tone reflects the very reason why Wikipedia'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)reply
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)reply
Requested move 1 March 2015
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Moved as proposed. Since there is no convention requiring the use of a particular disambiguator with respect to professionals in this particular genre,
WP:CONCISE is a legitimate basis for moving this page (as is the subject's extension into other genres of acting), and consensus is roughly 2-1 in favor of this move.
bd2412T19:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Support Came across the Aja discussion and realized that some people may think porn actors are working in some kind of reality show (or worse, hidden camera program). They are actors, acting in a film. They get paid to act. I don't think Wikipedia lists other actors according to their genre (Horror film actor, Comedy actress, etc.) so it seems odd that one genre (and I know it when I see it, which, my first name withstanding, isn't often) has been selected for more title identification.
Randy Kryn 14:07 5 April, 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I have just modified one external link on
Savannah (actress). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
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.
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 Wikipedia'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 articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. 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 articles
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)reply
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)reply
One, your nasty tone reflects the very reason why Wikipedia'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)reply
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)reply
Requested move 1 March 2015
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Moved as proposed. Since there is no convention requiring the use of a particular disambiguator with respect to professionals in this particular genre,
WP:CONCISE is a legitimate basis for moving this page (as is the subject's extension into other genres of acting), and consensus is roughly 2-1 in favor of this move.
bd2412T19:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Support Came across the Aja discussion and realized that some people may think porn actors are working in some kind of reality show (or worse, hidden camera program). They are actors, acting in a film. They get paid to act. I don't think Wikipedia lists other actors according to their genre (Horror film actor, Comedy actress, etc.) so it seems odd that one genre (and I know it when I see it, which, my first name withstanding, isn't often) has been selected for more title identification.
Randy Kryn 14:07 5 April, 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I have just modified one external link on
Savannah (actress). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
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.