Talk:Philip Mond

Created the talk-page for the Philip Mond article - Enjoy! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbogdan (talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 December 2014‎ (UTC)

"See also" Section OK - or Not?
FWIW - seems that the "See also" section is not ok by one editor - however, others may disagree - After all, according to "WP:OWN", "All Wikipedia content ... is edited collaboratively" - Further, according to "WP:ALSO" => "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." - Nonetheless, the following listing was deleted, without discussion, by "User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz":

 Copied from the March 12, 2015 version of "Philip Mond#See also:  See also

The following listing includes directors also known for adult erotic films: • Andrew Blake

• Fashion photography

• Glamour photography

• Helmut Newton

• Henry Paris

• James Avalon

• Marc Dorcel

• Mario Salieri

• Max Candy

• Michael Ninn

• Tinto Brass

Is the edit deletion *entirely* OK - or Not? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course the removal is OK. As I pointed out, inclusion of such a list is clearly contrary to consensus practice. The "see also" sections in Robert Altman and Frank Capra don't include links to selected other directors. The "see also" sections in Peyton Manning and Joe Montana don't include links to selected other quarterbacks. The "see also" sections in Gabriel Garcia Marquez and John Steinbeck don't include links to selected other writers. If you want to promote your favorite porn directors (and there's no other evident inclusion criterion here), then clutter up your userspace. It's certainly not appropriate in a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and considered opinion - others may (or may not) agree with you - the issue is the article content - and worthy related articles in a "See also" section - and not otherwise - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - seems your noted concerns (and/or opinions? and/or POVs?) may be groundless re "WP:MOS" (& related) afaik atm based on relevant detailed discussions presented earlier, including those re "WP:BLP" (see links below) - besides your opinion(s) (and related "WP:CHERRY" and/or "WP:Cherrypicking"), is there anything more substantial in the "WP:MOS" (or related) that better supports your POV? - so far - I've not found anything - but perhaps you can? - if interested, related detailed discussions can be found at several links, including the following: PS - Incidently, some of my favorite directors atm seem to be the same as your own - and include Robert Altman and Frank Capra (as well as Fellini, Kubrick, Kurosawa and Tarkovsky). In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Reference 1 - "not in violation of BLP"?
 * Reference 2 - BLP-related?
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive850
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive850
 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive193
 * Talk:Pornographic film actor