Talk:Fluffer

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.

The result of the proposal was Move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

When I first saw this article has 12 possible definitions listed within the article, that makes it a logical page to be disambiguated. Which I was bold and did, fair enough it got reverted. That then brings the next issue to the fore the article doenst have any citation that show what the article says is the primary term nor does it assert why a fluffer is notable. Gnangarra 10:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

An article doesn't have to "assert its notability" because that would be self referential. With two movies based upon this job, and it being widely known as a profession, that alone asserts its notability. You were wholly incorrect in thinking that WP:BOLD applies to page moves, and if you need to clear that up, speak with any admin. There are four references found on the page. A disambiguation page is not created for a series of definitions, and probably what needs to be done is have this article trimmed down not to include every marginal reference to "fluffing" that one can come up with. --David Shankbone 10:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources you refer to are 1 for each movie at IMDB nothing about the subject itself, and 2 for Fluffer in relation to the London underground. WP:BOLD says be careful it doesnt say that it doesnt apply it points out that such changes can be difficult to revert and then says Such edits are often warranted but please be sure you know what you are doing and feel free to ask for advice. Gnangarra 10:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Boldness applies to pretty much anything, but that still doesn't mean you shouldn't make an attempt to discuss big changes first. This is a pretty well-watched article, so it shouldn't have been that hard to get some opinions on what to do. At least suggesting the move on the talk page and waiting a couple days for responses might've been a better choice. Notability applies to everything -- you can't get around it by saying "this is already well-known". That's not how we work here. That said, my guess is that the topic is notable and there are probably reliable sources attesting to that; I could be wrong. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• The article has one sourced term Fluffer(London Underground), two movies plus and what the article content says(unsourced). In addition there are 11 other alternative uses, some maybe article worthy others arent and could be moved over to Wiktionary. Since it was decided that the use in relation to pornographic movies is more significant than any other usage such notability needs to be asserted(for a similar example Gaffer). Please restore the tags and address the concerns, rather than just dismissing them by saying Stop playing games. Gnangarra 11:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Although this article is in regards to The Fluffer, this article gives a concise definition. APK ^{yada yada} 11:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got no argument over the film, the second does give a definition but its a single sentence not exactly significant coverage and nothing near enough to assert that the term warrants to be at this page name rather than at a disambiguated name. Gnangarra 11:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

1 2 These articles may not go into depth of what fluffers do, but they give a basic description. A fluffer is a career for some guys, so I'm not sure how it wouldn't be considered notable? We have articles for other careers such as Make-up artist, Stripper, Pimp, etc. Why should this be an exception? If this whole conversation is in regards to the news coverage (and by news, I mean fundamentalist christian websites), then I would hope open-minded editors remember that Wikipedia doesn't censor information just because people like my relatives don't like it. If that was the case, we'd be deleting several thousand articles related to "dirty parts" of the human anatomy, the porn industry, and other aspects of human sexuality. APK ^{yada yada} 12:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, in regards to when you said, "nothing near enough to assert that the term warrants to be at this page name rather than at a disambiguated name." When most people hear the word "fluffer", they think porn. A dab page is probably in order, but the article name you chose "Fluffer(makeup artist)" is completely wrong. If you, or another editor, chooses to dab this page, please pick a better title. Fluffers are 10% makeup artist, 90% other. Also, the definition you used: "a hairdressing and makeup term. Fluffers were originally those who touched up an actress's hair and makeup during a shoot" leaves out the porn industry and it's well-known that fluffers are generally males that stimulate other males, not actresses. APK ^{yada yada} 12:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

When most people hear the word "fluffer", they think porn. - any source for that please? This page is not "Fluffer", it is "Fluffing". Ghits is unreliable, but porn fluffing is only mentioned in a few of the fist page, the rest are about "making mistakes" (daily telegraph article), breast implants, home decorating, and flatulence. No-one (i hope) is suggesting deletion of this page, but either have a DAB with this page on it, or having a DAB linked to from this page with a hat link. Have this article with the DAB in it is weird. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• I could see the article moved to Fluffer and the dab for "Fluffing" created. A Google search for "Fluffer" makes it pretty unequivocal what the term refers to. --David Shankbone 15:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually the article was originally named Fluffer and moved to Fluffing on January 19, 2006. I agree with David. It would be unambiguous as Fluffer. Lets move it. — Becksguy (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Problem: we have more cites for the term fluffer as a person removing detritus from the London Underground than for a person in the porn industry. The London Underground usage is also substantially older. A dab page is undoubtedly correct, but the verb "to fluff" (which is what this all boils down to) has numerous uses and I don't see this usage as being anything like the most significant. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, move it to Fluffer and make Fluffing the dab page. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 17:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yup, move it to Fluffer. DanBealeCocks, as David said a Google search for the word backs up what you were asking. APK ^{yada yada} 00:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Moving this to Fluffer doesnt resolve the issue as Fluffer has two different meanings both sourced, plus one movie(The Fluffer), and another 10 or so variants unsourced. I'd suggest that Fluffer be a dab page with Fluffing a redirect to it and that the articles should be at a disambiguated titles. The dab page can also have a link to Wiktionary. Gnangarra 14:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Gnangarra's suggestion sounds right, I think. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Support for Gnangarra's solution. ThuranX (talk) 04:09, 20 May 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.