Talk:Erik Rhodes (actor, born 1906)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Erik Rhodes (actor, born 1906) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

Oklahoma Low‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma 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.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. I screwed up and thought that the consensus was to move. I was probably thinking about the last move or something. I'm sorry for the confusion. However, I did move Erik Rhodes (disambiguation) to Erik Rhodes. With the failure of this move request, it does not make sense for Erik Rhodes to redirect here, because in that case the article might as well be at Erik Rhodes. I would have argued for the article to be moved, and for a link to be put at the top of the article for the porn star because the actor appears to be far more notable, but I don't think it is enough reason to override the lack of consensus. -- Kjkolb 10:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Rhodes (actor) → Erik Rhodes … Rationale: for a second person of the same name all that was needed was a link at the top of the page, there is only one link to the porn star and 18 links to the original page for the actor who is by far more notable … Please share your opinion at Talk:Erik Rhodes (actor). —Doc 17:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support as nominator - reasons given in nomination Doc 22:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current format seems to be the standard indicated SneakyTodd 04:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lack of articles is not a reason to ue a redirect from the name. In fact this should probably be a discussion on moving Erik Rhodes (disambiguation) to Erik Rhodes. In the end it is better to have someone at a dab article then directed to the wrong article. Vegaswikian 08:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Oppose The current format seems to be the standard indicated by [Category:Lists_of_ambiguous_human_names]. I see no reason why this name should be any different. Also, could we move this move request to the disambiguation page? It seems much more likely that anybody seeking information on Erik Rhodes the actor/singer will come across this move request when placed here than somebody looking for informatino about Erik Rhodes the porn star; I think the disambiguation page would be a more reasonable place to put it. --Todd 04:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC) SneakyTodd linkable name for this user

On the contrary, the usual example here is to add a disambiguation page only for three or more of a name. However for the present, I have followed the solution that I have seen used before where there are many links for the most known name which is to redirect to that name and with pointers to the disambiguation page at the top of both pages. This may end up the final solution, but we'll see what admin input we get. Also, in the future, please sign your posts using the ~~~~ as requested before, so that your posts are linkable to your user page. Thanks. Doc 05:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

with regard to placement, this is the page where the 'move request' directions say to place the discussion. Doc 05:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many links are there that would need adjustment? 10? It really seems like you could spend much less effort just changing the links. The only reasons for making the move would be because the actor's article was up first, or because you think the actor is more notable. It doesn't make much sense to give the first article precendence in every case, as Wikipedia's article would become outdated. As far as notability, it completely depends on what your POV is. I bet you that the 2nd Erik Rhodes's movies generate more money than the 1st ones currently do.--Todd 11:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography has always made money, but in this case you are evaluating an actor who's appeal is to a limited part of the gay community. There is no notability to other than the appeal to a part of a minority group. I am an inclusionist, so I'm not saying that the article should not be here, but to stack it next to an established actor who performed with Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire on stage and in the movies and who's family appeal is to all markets does not compare in my opinion. A porn star's appeal is to a niche market unless he/she becomes known for something more than that. --Doc 12:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

70 years ago, I would have definitely agreed with you, the actor would be very notable, and would deserve the main page. Currently, both actors appeal to niche markets, which is why I think the default page should be the disambiguation page. Granted, many people have heard of Fred Astaire, but he has been in quite a few movies, and has been associated with quite a few people. I had not heard of Ernest Sharpe before a couple of days ago, and I doubt very many people have. I know a lot of people who are very familiar with the porn star, but would not recognize (nor have seen or heard of) the actor, and would imagine that the opposite is true for you. --Todd 20:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter have you heard of Frederick Austerlitz? Original names are not really the issue here. On the other hand the appeal of any of the films that Erik Rhodes the actor appeared in could appeal to anyone, not just those with a certain orientation and the established nature of the original article. What we really need here is the input of other neutral persons on the principal not the persons in question. Doc 20:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my reference to Ernest Sharpe was as a way to distinguish the two people in question, not as a way to say that I hadn't heard his original name. --Todd 22:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both agree that the porn star is part of a niche market, so I guess the issue is whether or not the actor is as well. I think the fact that the porn star got the name Erik Rhodes is indicative here. No porn star in their right mind would name themselves "Brad Pitt;" there is already a well known person by that name. The fact that he got the name Erik Rhodes means that none of the people involved in the naming process (he was given his name by Studio 2000) had heard of the actor. Many people star in movies with family appeal; the actor Erik Rhodes, however, only has notability within a niche market. Although he could appeal to anyone, I think more people would use Wikipedia to try to find info on their favorite porn star. --Todd 22:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think that anyone would use Wikipedia to try and find pornography. This is an encyclopaedia and as such it tries to be inclusive, but notability must be shown and in most cases a porn star has to have become known outside of his medium to even be considered notable for an article. If that's what it's come to, a lot of folks might reconsider their financial contributions Doc 18:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changed disambiguation page

I added the "otheruses" template for the following reasons:

Anyone looking for the article on the actor who searches for "Eric Rhodes" will be directed to Erik Rhodes (actor), thus they can ignore the article that is about the porn star.
Anyone looking for the article on the porn star who searches for "Eric Rhodes" will be directed to Erik Rhodes (actor), and can then click on the {{otheruses}} information to get to the article they want.
This is much less work than the disambiguation page; that requires all searchers to click on another link.
This avoids exposing those who don't care for it to an article on a porn star.
Wikipedia is not censored.

Thanks.—Chidom ^talk 15:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Note: I had not read this talk page before making these changes; however, I still feel this was the right thing to do.—Chidom ^talk 15:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was my original point in the above move request. Doc ♬ talk 16:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Erikrhodes.jpg

Image:Erikrhodes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rationale added Doc ♬ talk 23:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Erik Rhodes (actor, born 1906) per the consensus below. (non-admin closure) Calidum T|C 18:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Rhodes (actor) → Erik Rhodes (non-pornographic actor) – Or alternatively Erik Rhodes (mainstream actor). Don't really feel good about nominating this as personally do not agree with the moves of all (pornographic actor) bios to (actor), but that seems like fait-accompli now, so now that (pornographic actor) is considered excess disambiguation, and now no longer one term as (landscape architect), then WP:DISAMBIGUATION requires non-ambiguous disambiguation such as (British actor) / (American actor) but Erik Rhodes (pornographic actor) was also American. The other conflicting bios are Wendy Williams (actress) vs Wendy Williams (pornographic actress), Priscila Sol (actress) vs Priscila Sol (pornographic actress), Ben Andrews (actor) vs Ben Andrews (pornographic actor), Kevin James (pornographic actor) vs Kevin James (actor). In ictu oculi (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never quite known what to make of the "pornographic actor"/"actor" divide. For unique names, it's not too much of a hassle. I appreciate the point, but defining someone by something they did not do is pretty strange, and especially so to have a title that essentially says "Erik Rhodes, who didn't get naked for money." Why not just Erik Rhodes (actor, born 1906)? --BDD (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second BDD's proposal. There is a precedent for this type of disambiguation at John_Smith#Sports. Betty Logan (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this should come to a speedy close. When there are options we have to present subjects according to what they are rather than what they are not. Greg Kaye 17:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with using the year in the title and not going down the route of having a negative in the page name. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Erik Rhodes (actor, born 1906) per BDD and WP:NCPDAB. Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have no objection, in fact prefer this solution as it seems to be allowable. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to Erik Rhodes (actor, born 1906) per above. –Davey2010^Talk 00:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Erik Rhodes (actor, born 1906). Seems that this solution would also work for the other 5 names above, where there is more than one actor with the same name. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.