Talk:Dakota Skye (actress)

Nominations / Awards
I wonder if a table format like is on the German page would be a better presentation than what is presently here. Just a thought. -- Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk 22:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the table in that article is wholly unverified, it doesn't have any place in this article. —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 01:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contributing this excellent idea. A table with references has been added. Would be nice to see the German version updated accordingly. HussainHx (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

map
IAW the BRD process, I'm here to ask about concurrence or disagreement with 's removal of the map from the "Death" section. I added it because none of the places described mean anything to me, but I assume they were mentioned in their original source for the significance of distance. The map was to give context for readers outside of Los Angeles County that would otherwise require original research.

TJRC said that, but that only provides readers with one point of data, whereas the section uses three to discuss the distance traveled by foot. I, for one, didn't need to know where Skid Row was, but where it was in relationship to San Fernando Valley and Woodland Hills; does that make sense? —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 20:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see why you were adding it. The above explanation above helps a lot, thanks.
 * I'm still not sure it belongs, but I'm a lot more neutral on it now if the caption explains its purpose. How about this markup?
 * I'm not sure that's the best caption, but some variant of it will at least show the relevance of the map.
 * It also adds the alt= parameter which will get rid of the odd hovertext "Dakota Skye (actress) is located in the Los Angeles metropolitan area"; and the three points are clickable.
 * I don't see any way of adding a scale showing the number of miles, which I think would be most valuable; do you? TJRC (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a map? That's its intrinsic purpose, isn't it, to show where things are and in relation to each other?I, of course, have no objection to alt text whatsoever; I copied the code from another article and modified it w/o checking for the alt parameter.  As for a scale, yeah, I've never seen a map on enwiki with a built-in scale; that's why I added the measurements to the caption.What about this implementation?    —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 16:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

the point on this map labeled "San Fernando Valley" appears to actually be the city of San Fernando, which doesn't appear to be mentioned in any reports of her whereabouts at this time.

Woodland Hills is within the SFV. Typically, Angelenos will notate the valley (as opposed to the specific city/municipality/neighborhood) as a destination or starting point, to emphasize the transit route requires travelling over "the hill" to get to LA/Hollywood/WeHo/etc.

This can be time consuming by car, as traffic through narrow canyons and that stretch of freeway, is often heavily congested.

I could never imagine walking it. Especially not from Woodland Hills, in the dead heat of summer. Vinidimambro (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The point labeled "San Fernando Valley" uses the coordinates from the article at San Fernando Valley. —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 18:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

unexplained edits
Twice now, has made the same set of edits without explanation. When I partially reverted some of them on 30 September 2021, I tried to thoroughly and concisely explain myself. IAW the bold-revert-discuss process, I'm going to explain today's edits (the same) verbosely. If anyone can explain FMSky's edits, I'd definitely appreciate it. I've tried to lay out my (now-verbose) explantions for this reversion. Thanks, all. —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 14:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The entire unbroken variable of " Skid Row, Los Angeles, California, U.S. " causes the line to wrap uncontrolled, which befouls other infobox formatting. Forcing the line to wrap with the     prevents this.
 * For the people who perform in pornography, our article is at the page pornographic film actor. Replacing this with pornographic actress not only introduces an unnecessary redirection, but the manual of style on gender-neutral language says to "use gender-neutral language […] where this can be done with clarity and precision."  That MOS further links to Writing about women which says "Use gender-neutral nouns when describing professions and positions".
 * I don't understand why some specific and uncommon subjects were de-linked; they certainly do not run contrary to the manual of style on linking.
 * The manual of style says that "Some editors type two spaces after a period/full stop; these are condensed to one when the page is rendered, so what the reader sees is not affected – ." There is no reason to remove such spacing, and it eases editing otherwise.
 * The content guideline on citing sources says "Although nearly any consistent style may be used, all-numeric date formats other than YYYY-MM-DD, because of the ambiguity concerning which number is the month and which the day.  […]  Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change."
 * The documentation at template:Commons category says "This template can be used to generate a link to a Commons category. It is intended for use in the "External links" section of an article." There's no reason to prefer template:Commons category, the inline version is in keeping with the other external links' formatting, and to change it in contravention of the bold-revert-discuss process is unexplainable.

Multiple Issues
This article has come a long way. User Fourthords disagreed with some of my changes, so it is time for discussion. Here is a breakdown of Fourthords's comment:

euphemistic piping, euphemistic language – This refers to my piping of the term "Adult Film" to link to the page entitled Pornography, and possibly my use of "problem substance use" to refer to "addiction." I did not make these changes to be euphemistic, but for specificity. While the terms "pornography" and "addiction" evade clear definition, adult films are defined by their explicitly intended audiences, and problem substance use is distinguished from substance use by its impact on physiological, psychological, and social functioning.

Break-out of death into its own section as significant source of notability and IAW MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL – This seems to refer to Scott's death as a notable incident, and to Wikipedia's guidance to "present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise." It is debatable whether Scott's death is more notable than her career awards. Kurt Cobain's article does not end with his death. Rather, his Death section immediately follows his Personal Life section, and then it is followed by 3 sections detailing his career achievements. This deviation from chronological structure seems reasonable to me, because it keeps personal life together.

MOS:PUNCTSPACE & MOS:VAR; MOS:CURLY; MOS:LQ – Not sure what this refers to, but it is not reasonable to revert content edits for typographical reasons.

MOS:SURNAME – This might refer to my use of the person's actual name in personal sections, reserving use of their stage name to their career sections, but it is not an accurate application of that section of the Wikipedia manual of style. The person's name was Scott, and their stage name was Skye. It does not seem to make sense to refer to a person by their stage name when discussing their personal life. I made similar edits to Meat Loaf's article.

copyedit for causal relationship; replacement of sourced prose – Not sure what these refer to.

I am going to make a few edits based on what I have taken away from Fourthords's comment. I will do my best to keep my edits as atomic as possible, and would appreciate the same from my fellow editors. Happy to continue the discussion.

Cheers, HussainHx (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If needed, I absolutely don't mind elaborating on my edit summary and its links. This also serves as the supplement to my subsequent edit summary here.
 * Piping pornographic film actor to the unnecessarily less-clear and euphemistic "adult film actor": the former explicitly describes Skye as an actor in pornographic films, while the latter can be interpreted by readers in a variety of unintentional ways&mdash;that's why our articles sit at those titles. I've reverted that change to conform to our own article titles.
 * At 23 percent of the article's prose, the impetus for creating the article, and the basis of 73% of the cited sources, Skye's death warrants breaking out into its own section. Manual of Style/Biography says,   As its own section, the prose about her death therefore belongs at the end of the article, barring significant related developments that are both (a) after her death, and (b) not related thereto.
 * Manual of Style says,  Manual of Style says,"Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that 'When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.' [See ArbCom decisions in June 2005, November 2005, and 2006]  If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page or – if it raises an issue of more general application or with the MoS itself – at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.'"  Ergo, since the MOS allows for either single- or double-spacing after a full stop, and disallows changing that without consensus, I replaced the original spacing.
 * Firstly, not only does our article for substance abuse sit at that title, but so too does the cited Rolling Stone article use it. Secondly, in the same source, Lecompte-Goble didn't call Skye's use problematic or explicitly judge it: the source says, .  I reverted that change to conform to our own article titles and the cited sources.  Another was the allegation that Skye "faced criticism" when the source doesn't say that.
 * Manual of Style says,  I have fixed these again where necessary.  This was also meant to include the repair non-straight apostrophes; I mistakenly thought that also fell under the CURLY anchor, but should have instead been noted in my edit summary with "+ MOS:'".
 * At Manual of Style/Biography, it says, . Since $9⁄11$ sources refer to her by the pseudonymic surname Skye, we will too.
 * Manual of Style says,  It furthermore says,   I was just fixing where these errors cropped up.
 * Previously the prose read,  This suggests that the listed people denoted a causal relationship between the increased drug use and changes in her behavior, but the source doesn't say that.  Instead, it's the editor suggesting that relationship, which runs afoul of No original research.
 * The cited sources make some hay about the both the delays in governmental specification of cause-of-death as well as Skye's alleged homelessness. Since it isn't our place to prefer one over another, we present both reliable sides and I replaced them.
 * Now, for reasons I can't fathom, you reverted my edit wholesale instead of discussing the edits with which you either disagreed or were confused. I've now made further edits both IAW the above explanations as well as new ones denoted in the edit summary, but in case you don't understand those summarized rationales, I'll explain them here:
 * There was a random space at the end of a paragraph, after a citation, which I deleted.
 * The citation named "2021-06-12 Yahoo!" is now dead, and so I duly updated its source template.
 * Currently, Citing sources says  As the article already uses list-defined references, I took the new usable sources and formatted them consistently with those already in the article.
 * The pornography WikiProject has established an SOP for award tables in biographies; I just adopted the code from their consensus for use here.
 * First of all, citing a Google Maps link for a presumed route and then proclaiming its accuracy is plainly prohibited original research and is removed. Secondly, the pornography WikiProject has established that, as user-generated source, the Internet Adult Film Database is unreliable for articular purposes (though includable in the external links section...
 * ... as has been done so, according to this summarization).
 * I feel confident that the above elaborations should cover all the edits I've made and summarized. If I've been insufficient in my explanations, please let me know.  Thanks,  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 18:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)