Talk:Sennett Bathing Beauties

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Women's History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

section --> article

Since it causes more confusion than it's worth:

I expanded the section over at Mack Sennett. Then I realized the section contained enough to justify branching out into its own article.

So when I said "expansion" (in the edit summary) that's comparing the article section before my additions.

CapnZapp (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, there's a specific reason why I felt I had to revert you as opposed to just fixing the issue. That is to retain the attributation - as you can see in history I was previously reverted for this reason, so by reverting you I don't have to redo that attributation. Have a nice day CapnZapp (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done As for your revert reason " there's no expansion here - this is a direct duplication of content already present at redirect target. RV to redirect" that was indeed true, but only because I didn't see the revert of the Mack Sennett page, so of course from your POV it made no sense to duplicate info.

Now the Mack Sennet article is in the appropriate shape, and the section has been branched out into an article of its own if you prefer that term over expanded since the expansion technically had already happened. Btw, this article is suitable referenced, and linked from several wikipedia pages, and has potential for further expansion, and having it as a standalone article helps the Mack Sennett article from becoming overly long. CapnZapp (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, all clear now :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Damiens.rf, please stick with WP:BRD - you made an edit (B), you were challenged and reverted (R), now you discuss (D). That's what the talk page is for. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Elmidae. This is about Damiens.rf removing the word "significant" from Not individually featured or named, many of these young women ascended to significant careers of their own, including followed by a list of actresses. This list includes only notable actresses - and how do we know this? Because without exception we are able to link to their own Wikipedia article! I believe that the claim that any actress with her own Wikipedia page has "ascended to [a] significant career" is uncontroversial and should remain. Do note: had the text claimed their success was because their background as a Bathing Beauty that would likely be unverifiable. But it does not. I do remain open to improving the language used, but so far Damiens.rf has only communicated through edit warring. CapnZapp (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"careers of their own" is OK, because it's a neutral and factual description. "Significant" is the non-neutral point of view you both seem to agree. --damiens.rf 22:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First off, Damiens, thank you for belatedly coming to the Talk page. I agree "significant" is a value-laden descriptor, but we don't have to avoid those to stay neutral. We just need to justify them; to avoid original research. In this case, each and every mentioned actress did not just have a career, but a career that made her sufficiently notable to warrant a personal Wikipedia article. It is this fact that transforms their careers into objectively significant careers, in my opinion. I remain open to rewording this, though; I just didn't feel the outright removal of their career's notability was warranted. As I read the article text, the writer intended to juxtapose the mentioned ladies with the significant careers against the to-remain-nameless Bathing Beauties whose careers did not reach any heights of significance (as evidenced by them neither getting a name nor a Wikipedia article). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant" is justified from Wikipedia's point of view in that these people have separate articles which attest their notability by our standards. Just "careers" is a non-statement that might as well not be there - any working person has a career of some kind. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HTML comments

These were added back in 2017 when the content was on the Mack Sennett page. The editor was Trekphiler who added  with the edit comment geez, will you learn how to cite a source? to which I say: geez, will you learn how to properly tag improperly formatted citations? ;-) In other words, those HTML comments are useless and I just removed them. If anyone has any objections to the references in question, there are better ways to signal this. One I already fixed myself. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]