This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics 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.
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The following discussion is an archived 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.
Support and other sports have perfect 10's as well. And some beauty contests. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The only other article with a similar name is Perfect 10 (single) which is already correctly disambiguated by a hatnote. Station1 (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
But I do feel that the score is notable enough to have its own page, as there is a huge article potential as well as a list for gymnasts who achieved a perfect 10. There are plenty of news and web source for it. The magazine may be more notable in the US than it was elsewhere (thats because my newsagent stopped selling them after a year), wheras the single is notable in Europe, which maked the pair equally notable but being used in the Olympics in the past, the score is far more notable, which anybody should no problem naming one gymnasts who achieved a 10.0. hence the reasoning for psge move is that the score have a higher notability to the two. Jay Pegg (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
What you've described so far is a dictionary definition of the term, and articles that are nothing more than dict defs are not appropriate. If you feel an encyclopedic article is possible, then you could try creating something like Perfect 10 (score). If it survives, you can then propose turning Perfect 10 into a disambiguation page. But with no article and only a dictionary definition, there is nothing to disambiguate beyond what is accomplished with the hatnote. older ≠ wiser 12:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The term 'Perfect 10' is already defined in List of gymnastics terms. It could also be appropriate to add a section about it to the article on the Code of Points which could include a list. I don't think it warrants an article because there isn't much more than can be said about it that isn't already covered in the ones that exist already.DanielEng (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I am more interested in a list of those who achieved that score, I proposed it as I thought I saw potential for an article, which would be used to introduce the list. Jay Pegg (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not a rare enough score to be remarkable enough for an article list, in all honesty. Pretty much every top gymnast from 1980 to 1991ish received a 10 at some point. And, as mentioned, if a list was something one wanted to do, it could be added to the Code of Points article. At any rate, I don't think the creation of a list for a colloquial term that can be addressed elsewhere should trump a magazine that uses the term as its title.DanielEng (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DanielEng and Bkonrad's comments entirely. Knepflerle (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Forgetting the article proposal, I am going to stick to the article move idea as I have seen two way disambigation articles, in another words disambigation page that consists of two articles, my reasoning as stated earlier, the song and the magazine are as equally notable as each other. Jay Pegg (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there an article for the gymnastics score? If not, then there is nothing to disambiguate. At most, a note on the magazine article indicating the gymnastics sense of the term should suffice. older ≠ wiser 17:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
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.
This article is in category "Magazines established in 2007". Still it is told it was found 1997, not 2007.
And there reads: Perfect 10 was a quarterly men's magazine. Well, when was it discontinued? There is nothing about that in the article. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Perfect 10 is still around as a subscription website.
This article needed a bit of updating. Perfect ten may no longer be around as in a dead tree edition but it still exists in online-only subscription website. There was no mention of this in the intro or body of the article as I added it. The last print edition of the mag was Issue 43 - Summer 2007 but I was not able to find out when the subscription website went live based on a casual Google search. I assume it's been online since at least 2007, though it's unclear if they offered online subscriptions prior to 2007. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)