Talk:Aurora Snow

Height & weight

What is the encyclopedic reason for including this information? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand that you've been repeatedly removing this kind of info (or making this kind of info "invisible") across many, many articles over these past many weeks, but calling something "unencylopedic" isn't a valid argument. This kind of info is routinely included in BLPs per the infobox template for this genre, which is based off a more general infobox template. You can safely stop making up arguments to delete info that you don't like now. Thank you. Guy1890 (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to the template. I located this discussion Template_talk:Infobox_adult_biography#Proposal_to_remove_.22measurements.22_from_template with what appears to be overwhelming support for the removal of measurement information. Could you give me some back story on that? The discussion was in 2011 and the measurements are still in the template... K.e.coffman (talk) 07:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

That old discussion (that I never participated in) was apparently, mostly about penis and/or breast information, which apparently fell out of style a while back (even though I've seen some model BLPs include chest/waist/hips info before). Height & weight info are a very, very common fields in various infoboxes. Guy1890 (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Guy1890: I have a different perspective on the matter. I believe that the inclusion of this material makes the performers appear different, as if they are evaluated based on their physical characteristics vs on-screen talent or business abilities. These parameters are not included in the infoboxes of mainstream actors or business people, and one would never think of putting this info there.

As it happened, I had copy edited Jessica Drake's article a couple of weeks before the news of the Trump allegations broke. I believe that the version of the page following my edits (link) presented a more professional image of Drake rather an article with intricate detail of her weight or trivia as to why her name is sometime spelled in all lower case: "After the convention, she experimented with various ways of signing and settled on the lower case version of her name" etc. (Or at least I attempted to remove the weight/height data, but that was reverted).

This is not the content one would expect to find in an encyclopedia article, and the excessive amount of intricate detail takes away from the performers career. I do acknowledge that some performers are notable, but I believe we should be applying the same standards as to the mainstream actors or business people. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Since the current Infobox for adult biographies conforms exactly with the current Infobox for all persons on Wikipedia, there's no chance that these kind of performers are potentially portrayed "differently" than anyone else on Wikipedia. I've also seen no evidence that "These parameters are not included in the infoboxes of mainstream actors or business people". Explanations (usually cited to the performer in question, which is not controversial at all) for why a performer chose their stage name are pretty standard in these types of BLPs.

I've noticed for quite some time that your opinion of how these types of BLPs should "look" almost always "requires" that reliably-sourced information be removed from these types of articles mostly over phony "intricate detail" concerns. The goal here on Wikipedia is to write well-sourced articles that are longer rather than shorter over the long-run. Again, attempts at making "unencylopedic" arguments aren't valid on Wikipedia. We are crafting biographies of notable people, not merely summaries of their professional lives only. Guy1890 (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting debate. Using the precedent of mainstream actors' wiki pages to argue for the removal of body stats may be questionable, as the word "actor" was (arguably) grandfathered in for pornographic performers. There is rarely if any "acting" (as musical theater majors might use the term) involved in modern pornography. Not that I would know. I just heard. I'm not sure why Actor pages should set the precedent? Unless Meryl Streep and Aurora Snow are routinely compared in any other medium or on any other occasion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.153.88.187 (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)