Talk:Bondage rigger

Sort order

I always feel that lists of people should be alphabetized by surname. For example, instead of:

• Irving Klaw

it would be

• Klaw, Irving

Does anyone have any objection to this? I'll watch this page for one week, and if I see no objection I'll take the liberty of arranging the list of riggers in that manner. Testostera 14:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Few if any names were comma-ized like that, and it is not typical of lists in Wikipedia. Furthermore, at this moment (in this year) there are so many unusual "names" in the list, including several from family-name-first countries, that I've sorted the list by the name as it displays. As a result, Western names like "Matthias T. J. Grimme", are sorted by given name (Matthias) rather than last name (Grimme). --Thnidu (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

List Trimming

I suggest anyone who does is not notable enough to have their own wikipedia article be taken off the list. Any objections?

Remember, Wikipedia is not a directory. -Neitherday (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

STRONGLY DISAGREE There are MANY people who do not have wikipedia articles because the article written about them was deleted because of "notability" issues. Most people who fall into this category have many years of experience. They have developed and practiced their art form, and have been working on the "bleeding edge" of the business. Much of their work, like many other true artists, won't be recognized as valuable until after their death. http://www.BDSM-Icons.org is trying to recognize these artists before they die!

--Robin Roberts 17:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

STRONGLY DISAGREE The problem here is that several of the people on the list are notable enough to have their own wikipedia articles, but they have not been written yet. Allow me give an example. BDSM is a practice, usually intentionally sexual, (although sometimes carried out in archaic religious ceremonies and practices), and many practitioners, especially those of Japanese rope bondage, would claim that it is even an art form. Whether you personally agree or not, the fact that an abundance of fine art photography books featuring beautiful and intricate rope bondage can be found in the photography section of most major book chains and also commonly hanging on the wall in galleries in major cities, indicates that a not-insignificant portion of the population agrees. Just like any art form, BDSM evolves as riggers or rope artists develop new techniques and original styles, building on what has been done by those who have come before. Claire Adams, one of the names you suggest be "trimmed" has an undeniably unique style that has advanced the art of BDSM in a notable way. Now, no one has gotten around to writing an article about her work yet, but that doesn't mean she should be trimmed. The problem with editing entries related to BDSM and practitioners is that there are so few experts and very many hobbyists and fetishists who do not have an adequate grasp of the historical timeline, incremental development, and major contributors to the practice in the same way that say many art history professors and students have a clear grasp. I recommend, hopefully without offending anyone, that editing, requesting deletion of or substantially revising these entries be done with care, with proper reference material and in an unbiased manner by people who have taken the time to study the subject. In addition, the Claire Adams that is listed on the bondage rigger page is linked to the biography of a deceased film actress of the same name - one who has nothing to do with BDSM. The real Claire Adams is alive and well. If anyone knows where there is a correct listing for the BDSM related Claire Adams, please update the link. I cannot find it and she has more than one stage name. Cydblack 18:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Reestablished the list

This seems to me to be an article of dubious necessity, but insofar as it does have any, the list adds considerable value. The comment of the user who deleted the list would not apply to the list but to the article as such, which is more of a dictionary entry than an encyclopedic one, and would better be incorporated into an article of wider scope. This is a separate debate. Fbunny (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability

I have WP:BOLDLY removed from this article the names of practitioners that are not linked to their own articles. I am far from the first editor to do this. The reasons I have done so are as follows:

• The section's title, "Notable examples", means that in WP terms they must have their own articles. If this is supposed to be list of non-notable examples the section title should be changed to "Examples".
• This issue has not been properly considered on this Talk Page for twelve years, during which time the list has changed.
• As with many lists of this sort, it may have been subject to WP:FANCRUFT with no apparent supervision.

I am very much in agreement that major practitioners in the field can be poorly covered as regards literature and the media. However, WP policy does not allow for WP:UNSOURCED material even when that material is both true and relevant. WP:VERIFY discusses the fact that, as an encyclopaedia, WP requires all content to be verifiable rather than simply true. If we are to include the contribution of these artists, the list as it stood is not a particularly good way of doing that. A discussion here to talk about the best way of covering this type of content may be a good idea. -- Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)