Talk:Kristina and Karissa Shannon

"Overnight sensations" ?

The use of the phrase "became overnight sensations" in the article, as applied to the subjects of the article, is appropriate for tabloid journalism, but not for Wikipedia.

And if, in addition, this article continues to leave out any temporal reference, indicating when the subjects of this article became involved with Hugh Hefner, maybe this article is best omitted from Wikipedia.

Come to think of it, a person's sexual involvement with Hugh Hefner does not seem a sufficient reason to include an article about them in Wikipedia.

This article should probably be deleted. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip sheet.Daqu (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the 'overnight sensations' part. If you had such an issue with it, I'm not sure why you didn't remove it yourself. As for their notability, being Hef's girlfriends, they are/will be the focus of quite a bit of media attention. If you'd like to put it up for AFD though, be bold. Dismas|^(talk) 04:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that individuals get "a bit of media attention" may be a good reason to include an article about them in National Enquirer. But it falls far short of justifying why there should be any mention of these individuals in an encyclopedia.

(And my understanding is that one is supposed to discuss on the Talk page any proposed dramatic changes like removing an article before unilaterally taking such action.)Daqu (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You could nominate it for WP:AFD but with all the press coverage that these two have received, they do pass WP:BIO. Dismas|^(talk) 14:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not the criterion for whether a topic belongs in an encyclopedia.Daqu (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, if you don't like the article being here, nominate it for WP:AFD. It's pointless to debate it if you're just going to sit here and say it doesn't belong without actually doing anything that is within your rights to do. Dismas|^(talk) 01:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It may indeed be pointless to debate this with you, but the talk page is precisely for discussing proposed changes before they happen, ideally to arrive at a consensus first.Daqu (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is a good place to hash things out, I agree. But there seem to be two issues that you have/had with this article. 1) The phrasing of "overnight sensations" which is a minor change and not really talk page worthy, in my opinion. It's a minor wording issue. And 2) whether this page even belongs here on WP. I think that you've reached a conclusion. I think it should stay, and you have your opinion. Since we're the only two who seem to be following this discussion, it seems as though you'd have to open the article up to AFD to find out if the community feels it should stay. Dismas|^(talk) 22:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Measurements

How can both people have the exact same measurements, height and weight? --Mikecraig (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, they are identical twins so it wouldn't be unheard of for them to be quite close in weight. As far as their measurements and height, I would think that would be determined by their DNA which for identical twins is, as far as I understand it, nearly identical. There may be fractional differences in the measurements but nothing noteworthy. Dismas|^(talk) 05:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal life

I didn't put this in, but I cleaned up some of the bad typing. I agree it should be referenced and the typing is still terrible (no spaces after commas, improper capitalization, etc). Corsair1944 (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it isn't referenced, it should be removed per wp:blp. It's fairly personal info for which we have no reliable source. Specifically, the info says that their grandmother raised them which leads one to question why their parents didn't. Additionally, it's rather taboo for a 17 y.o. to have children, so erring on the side of privacy is what is called for. Dismas|^(talk) 23:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sex tape with Heidi Montag

She has acknowledged that such a tape does exist. Should we put it into the article? 137.48.219.87 (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it notable? Has it led to any press coverage? If not, I don't see the point. If the coverage is minimal, I still don't see the point. Is the coverage from a reliable source? Dismas|^(talk) 23:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you talkin about? Seriously. She sold the tapes to vivid herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.20.60 (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Playmate Twins distinction

In addition to breaking the WP:3RR rule, the same user has removed referenced content relating to a unique status that the twin possess. They are the first Playmate twins to appear in one issue, but be presented and consecutive monthly Misses. The first objection was because it he considered the information to be "marketing" and "insignificant" even though out of 700+ Playmates its a completely unique circumstance. The next objection was because the information was unsourced, a source citing the unique factor was found. Finally the third removal is because after its been pointed out that its unique and a reference has been found, the User still has the opinion that its not significant. Comments? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• My suggestion is not to reinsert anything into the articles lead section. Replace the phrase "The two shared a single centerfold" with "The two appeared in consecutive months, unlike previous centerfold twins who shared a single centerfold." If this can be reliably sourced then I don't see why there should be any problems. Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Rebecca. I don't think it should go in the intro, I do like her wording, and it definitely should appear that way in the body. The source does note the distinction, however they also note the financial difficulties which caused it. They then go on to say "Still, it's nice that they got recognition, all the same". The source has more value than the opinion of editors.LM2000 (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
    • It should not appear that way in the article, because it's obviously false, a point that somehow eludes the responders. They appeared in the same centerfold in the same issue. The cited source (a brief puff piece from another lad mag includes obvious errors and should not be deemed an RS -- not that what is essentially an opinion from a single source should be enshrined as factual. The "unique status" is nothing but promotional fancruft/marketing, whose main raison d'etre was to help Playboy succeed in charging its subscribers for one issue at the price of two. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The only thing that seems obvious in this situation is that you appear to be regarding your opinion as a reliable source. You're doing it in this article and the one on Tanya Tate and who knows where else; if there is an obviously logical pattern to your edits there would likely be fewer questions and complaints on your Talk page about this type of behavior, but it escapes me and the others I've asked.

You keep claiming that cited sources are "obviously false" and contain "obvious errors" without any substantiation and then refer to it as "fancruft/marketing" and make an accusation you can't possibly back up, but yet it's everyone else's fault. Here's an actual fact, the Bauer Media Group who owns FHM magazine is a competitor to Playboy Enterprises. So the opinion that a publisher would provide benefit to a competitor is either woefully naive or ignorant or, for whatever reason, you stated it because you simply dislike the subject matter. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to push your point of view and that is how your come across in your actions and comments. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)