Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Jenna Jameson
[edit]
I think it might be wise to discuss whether we want to feature an article about a porn star. History of Erotic Depictions got a fair bit of backlash when we initially featured it (in fact, in those discussions, I pointed out that Jenna Jameson might at one point be featured and that this might be reasonable). However, we do need to consider Wikipedia's PR and having this on the mainpage could be a PR concern, and there is the additional concern that this might turn off teachers who would otherwise have their students use Wikipedia. Finally, I believe there is at least one article which has reached FA status but the decision was made not to feature it since it was too technical a subject (maybe someone remembers what that is) so there is some precedent for this. (I'm sticking this on the talk page rather than the main candidate page since it isn't directly an FA concern). JoshuaZ 17:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Is it fair to say that this article might never actually make it to the main page? Obviously, that's a Raul-level decision, but that may solve the problem, although I personally hate to even consider it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's important to make the distinction between featuring the article, and putting it on the main page. Raul keeps his "very small, unofficial list of featured articles that he does not intend to appear on the main page" so you could ask him whether this will be added to it. Trebor 17:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. So some fundamentalist Christians get offended by a fully-clothed porn star on the Main Page. So what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.135.84 (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Jenna Jameson featured?[edit]
- (Copied from User_talk:Raul654)
Hi - I notice you just promoted Jenna Jameson. I believe Worldtraveller's comments remain unaddressed, and I entered some comments in a similar vein (perhaps after you decided) that certainly remain unaddressed. I don't know if you ever change your mind due to "late breaking" comments on the FAC page, but my guess is that promoting this article in its current state will help to solidify Worldtraveller's opinion that WP is broken. I don't actually care about this specific article. I do care about losing editors of the caliber of Worldtraveller. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I'm sorry, but that complaint ("too long for a porn star") is one of the two complaints that I just can't fulfill without destroying the article. One of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria is "comprehensive", and it doesn't say anything about "comprehensive, except for porn stars". As is, I will confidently assert we have the best article on this subject on the Web, and that includes some pretty good articles, the ones we use as sources: New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Rolling Stone, etc. If we eviscerate it, we won't. Do note, however, that Wt's comparison to Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, etc., is incorrect, those articles are far longer, even if you don't include the sub-articles, and especially if you do. WP:SIZE, which Wt quotes in one one his edit comments, specifically excludes references from article length for comparison, and those make up half the article body. The other objection that I just can't resolve completely is "no fair use images whatsoever" - that's clearly not the way we do things here. I'd be very happy to address other issues, nothing is perfect.
- Anyway, responding to that is not quite why I'm here - I wanted to ask about the "main page?" concerns discussed on Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Jenna_Jameson. Raoul/Mark, is it correct that this article will never be on the main page? Or do you think it is qualified? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- In reply to Rick, I agree with AnonEMouse's characterization of the objection - I do not consider "too detailed" to be a compelling objection. As far as putting this article on the main page, I am undecided, but leaning a bit towards 'no'. IMO, 'History of erotic depictions' was close to the line, but still a few steps inside the boundary. I'm not so sure about Jenna Jamison though. Raul654 02:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- My issue was not "too detailed" (I entered a list of specific, detailed comments on the FAC page - which I think simply suffered from bad timing) and based on a comment on his talk page I believe WT meant to leave a more detailed critique (but was otherwise occupied - and I suspect "too detailed" is not an accurate summary). This is not a big deal in my book and enough time has passed that it is now clearly moot (more specifically, I think what's done should remain done). The only thing about this that concerns me at this point is that I seem to have entered comments on the FAC page after the article was promoted (the bot update of the FAC page lagged your edit of WP:FA sufficiently to allow this - I've checked the time stamps). Perhaps this may argue that the bot should work the other direction (i.e. you close the discussion at the FAC page and have the bot update WP:FA). It is a trifle annoying to have spent time composing comments that weren't considered. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- They weren't considered because you made the post almost an hour after I closed the nomination and removed it from the FAC. [1][2] The FAC page is the authoritative listing of what is and is not currently nominated. If something is not there, then it is not curretly a nomination. The whole point of using the bot is so I don't have to hand-close 50+ nominations a week. Raul654 03:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Is this [3] the edit that queues the bot, or this [4]? It doesn't really matter, the point is that the FAC page looked open (albeit from a direct link, rather than from the transclusion at WP:FAC). It may not come up often, and you're certainly free to say "tough shit", but there does seem to be a window. Finding a way to close it seems like a good idea to me. Perhaps you could run a "close" bot that does both. BTW - I can't really tell, but it seems like you're annoyed. I'm not, and I don't mean this to come across as whining. Bots are good. Leaving a window open is bad (especially if it was open for more than an hour). And again, I don't care about this article in particular. I appreciate your utter selfless devotion to what you must surely sometimes think is a tremendously thankless task (I, frankly, occasionally wonder about your sanity). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- They weren't considered because you made the post almost an hour after I closed the nomination and removed it from the FAC. [1][2] The FAC page is the authoritative listing of what is and is not currently nominated. If something is not there, then it is not curretly a nomination. The whole point of using the bot is so I don't have to hand-close 50+ nominations a week. Raul654 03:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- My issue was not "too detailed" (I entered a list of specific, detailed comments on the FAC page - which I think simply suffered from bad timing) and based on a comment on his talk page I believe WT meant to leave a more detailed critique (but was otherwise occupied - and I suspect "too detailed" is not an accurate summary). This is not a big deal in my book and enough time has passed that it is now clearly moot (more specifically, I think what's done should remain done). The only thing about this that concerns me at this point is that I seem to have entered comments on the FAC page after the article was promoted (the bot update of the FAC page lagged your edit of WP:FA sufficiently to allow this - I've checked the time stamps). Perhaps this may argue that the bot should work the other direction (i.e. you close the discussion at the FAC page and have the bot update WP:FA). It is a trifle annoying to have spent time composing comments that weren't considered. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)