Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:06, 9 March 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers 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 supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies 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. Pornography High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1

Undid reversion

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 average banjo 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 average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2015

The request to rename this article to Savannah (actress) has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Savannah (pornographic actress) → Savannah (actress) – This redirect should be the other way around; per reasoning in this edit summary, there is no mainstream actress named Savannah to disambiguate from. Erpert 10:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - makes reasonable sense to me. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment both the current and proposed names are somewhat ambiguous, there being another porn star named Savanna Samson -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as previous RMs , restore any articles which have been moved In ictu oculi (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2015 (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. —  AjaxSmack  15:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Acting really isn't her forte! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice tag team editing/commenting folks, even word for word... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:47, 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. Betty Logan (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Same as this case: . --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:38, 6 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)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Low-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Start-Class Pornography articles
• High-importance Pornography articles
• Start-Class High-importance Pornography articles
• WikiProject Pornography articles
• Requested moves